Network Configuration
charter-ietf-netconf-20
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
No Objection
Warren Kumari
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
- Ready for external review (13-00)
- Ready for external review (14-02)
- Ready for external review (15-15)
- Approve (15-21)
- Ready w/o external review (17-00)
- Ready for external review (18-07)
- Ready for external review (18-10)
- Approve (18-13)
- Ready for external review (19-04)
- Approve (19-05)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 18-13 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -18-15)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-06-06 for -18-13)
Unknown
I doubt that the text "The NETCONF WG recently finalized..." will age gracefully. Suggest s/recently finalized/published/
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-06-05 for -18-13)
Unknown
I agree with Spencer's comments. Also, I have trouble suspending disbelief with those milestone dates. (Especially the ones in the past.) If those are real, it means the WG will be doing lots of work in parallel over the next couple of months. Is that reasonable?
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-06-08 for -18-13)
Unknown
Probably editorial comments on point 5: - Maybe s/protocol-neutral/protocol-independent/ - And what's a transport message? Regarding the milestones: - Is it correct that not all points listed are covered by milestones? Is that on purpose? - Is it really needed to call out the WGLC as a separate milestones? I've seen wg adoption as milestones but WGLC seems close enough to he final publication/send to IESG that I don't think a separate milestone is actually valuable.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-06-05 for -18-13)
Unknown
I have a few minor comments, but this looks clear and plausible. In this text, 1. Finalize the YANG data module for a system-level keystore mechanism, which can be used to hold asymmetric private keys and certificates that are trusted by the system advertising support for this module. Based on the known dependencies this draft has the highest priority for the WG. I thought it might be helpful to say who has these dependencies, not in detail, but just at the "other working groups", "other SDOs", "open source community", "all of the above" level. I counted something like seven items that apply to both NETCONF and RESTCONF/HTTP2. Is the intention that these are two protocols that will continue to evolve, but in lockstep? I think you're headed that way, but I'm not sure. If so, saying that would be good. For all the other RFCs listed in the charter, the name of the RFC is also provided (sometimes the name is in parens, other times the RFC number is in parens, but they're always together), except for RFC 5277 which is invoked without providing its name. Could you adjust the first mention of RFC 5277 to match the others?
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -18-13)
Unknown