Deterministic Networking
charter-ietf-detnet-04

Yes

John Scudder

No Objection

Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Jim Guichard
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke
(Andrew Alston)
(Martin Duke)
(Robert Wilton)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"

John Scudder
Yes
Comment (2023-11-27 for -03-00) Not sent 
To recap comments I made earlier in a different forum, I see this recharter effort as neither more nor less than the merger of two previously chartered WGs (RAW, now closed, is the other one) without any net increase in chartered work, but rather a net decrease in number of WGs to juggle. 

In my view, this recharter doesn’t actually expand the scope of the WG, since the approved charter doesn’t restrict detnet from working on any particular media, including wireless. So, I think this only adds precision and transparency, and doesn’t reflect formal scope creep. That was my rationale for adding it to the agenda as a minor recharter.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Comment (2023-11-28 for -03-00) Sent 
This looks good to me. Even though TSVWG is mentioned in the charter, I was think as DETNET working group will touch on packet loss, delay and recovery which is very close to congestion control we do, it might be good to mention CCWG in this charter for potential collaboration. CCWG hosts good expertise on delay and loss related questions.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2023-11-30 for -03-00) Sent 
I have reviewed the changes to the current charter: they do make sense.

Alas, neither the current charter nor the revised one mention the intended status of the documents (they are only specified in the separate milestones). Most of the work items are "will document" and corresponding milestones of "informational" *EXCEPT* for the data plane one as it is both "will document" and "standards track", i.e., a contradiction. May I suggest to change the "will document" into "will specify" for the data plane work item ?
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -03-00) Not sent 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Martin Duke Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (for -03-00)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Robert Wilton Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2023-11-28 for -03-00)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
In the block of text describing the coverage of wireless, would it be helpful for the charter to explicitly mention that it is picking up this work from the RAW WG?  I'm not sure that this comment will be useful longer term, but possible may be helpful for the next few years?