IDentity Enabled Networks
charter-ietf-ideas-00-06

There's a continuity issue between deliverable (2) and the paragraph about not publishing as RFCs. I suggest reversing the order between that paragraph and the list of sub-items under (2)

No objection to this charter, but it needs some update before publication.

- I've reviewing the IDEAS BoF meeting minutes and part of the video.
First session, first slide 1: Motivation
"what operators want: operational and deployment simplicity"
Since the goal is to write a framework, I expect the operational and deployment aspects to be covered.
Note: these days, if a feature can't be automated, it doesn't exist. So think about those day one.
I would like to see a sentence about this in the charter. For ex, in the bullet list.
    - Operational and deployment considerations

- The IESG has been having numerous discussions on what a framework (or an architecture) is. No consensus
To avoid this trouble, avoid "Some of the areas that should be considered when developing the framework include:", and make it a "must" statement. Something such as: the framework must at least include the following points.

- I have no idea what flexibility means in "Flexibility and extensibility considerations". And extensibility of?

- I like this sentence: "These documents will not be published as RFCs"

- On one side you mention:

    Some of the areas that should be considered when developing the framework
    include:

    ...

    - Requirements for identifier/locator mapping resolution and mapping update
    (e.g. discovery, pub/sub, multi-homing, ...)

And on the other side:

    These documents will not be published as RFCs, but will be maintained in a
    draft form or on a collaborative Working Group wiki to support the efforts of
    the Working Group and help new comers:

    ...
    - Requirements for identifier/locator mapping and resolution

So do you want to cover requirements in this framework? I don't think so
OLD:

	- Requirements for identifier/locator mapping resolution and mapping update
	(e.g. discovery, pub/sub, multi-homing, ...)

NEW:
	- Description of identifier/locator mapping resolution and mapping update
	(e.g. discovery, pub/sub, multi-homing, ...)



Editorial
- Alignment issue

    - Problem statement
    - Use cases
    - Requirements for identifier/locator mapping and resolution
    - Requirements for identity authentication and authorization service (for
    GRIDS). - Applications of the architecture for use cases - Threat model document

-  "The IDEAS WG will closely collaborate with LISP and HIP WGs. The WG will also collaborate with other WG as needed."
First sentence. Collaborate on what? Which objectives?
Second sentence. Sure, so what does it add to the charter

Thanks for adding in security requirements text, this is important.