Global Routing Operations
charter-ietf-grow-03-01

[Ballot comment]
    The purpose of GROW is to consider the operational problems associated
    with the Internet Protocol (IP) global routing systems, including but
    not limited to default-free zone routing table growth, effects of the
    interactions between interior and exterior routing protocols, the effect
    of address allocation policies, or practices on the global routing
    system.  [...]

I'm not sure what the last bit is trying to say.  What "practices" are it that might
have an effect on the global routing system?  Is "on the global routing system" supposed
to apply to the entire list or just the last item?
Also, nit: "including but not limited to" should introduce a list that ends with "and"
(currently "or" is used).

    Where appropriate, GROW documents the operational aspects of

What or who determines when it is "appropriate"?

  SIDR operations related work will occur in
  SIDROPS

nit: end the sentence with a full stop, please.

    GROW will also advise various working groups, mainly IDR and SIDROPS,
    with respect to whether they are addressing the relevant operational and
    routing security requirements of Internet-connected networks, and, where
    appropriate, suggest course corrections.

Martin D's point about one-directional advice feels poignant; a different phrasing
than "course corrections" might help, like "areas where improvement would have
significant impact".  (Also, same comment about "where appropriate" as above.)

  Provide documentation to assist in preventing malpractice in the global routing
  system.

Do you have examples in mind of what might be documented that is not a best practice
or an operational aspect (the previous two items)?

The proposed milestones mention "evolving documents"; is there a reference where
those are discussed?

[Ballot comment]
I support Magnus's BLOCK.

This charter appears to envision one-way communication from GROW to other WGs on the work they need to do. Is there no output of this WG that deserves some consultation with the routing area?

[Ballot block]
Sorry, but what the hell does it mean to "Provide stewardship and maintenance"?

noun: stewardship; plural noun: stewardships

    the job of supervising or taking care of something, such as an organization or property.
    "the funding and stewardship of the NHS"

So what is scoped in that role, only updates to fix found issues? Or does it allow also to do extension to the named protocols? Does stewerdship imply a control over other WGs if they attempt to do something with the intended protocols? I expect not the latest, but if one interpret the supervising part that could be implied.

[Ballot comment]
Two editorial things:

  GROW will also advise various working groups, mainly IDR and SIDROPS,
  with respect to whether it is addressing the relevant operational and
  routing security requirements of Internet-connected networks, and where
  appropriate, suggest course corrections.

The antecedent to "it" appears to be "GROW", but I think it's supposed to refer to those various working groups.  Maybe "it" should be "they"?  (Also, super-nit, there should be an additional comma before "where appropriate".)

And there appears to be some bad punctuation problems in the "goals" paragraph -- missing periods, at least.

Much of this is editorial, and was started purely because people pointed out that the old charter was, um, old.

It isn't really chartering new work, more just administrivia...