Ballot for charter-ietf-opsawg
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04-03 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Thanks for clarifying the charter, therefore I am clearing my previous BLOCK.
# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-opsawg-04-04 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md ## Comments * "Develop such work items that are not in the scope of an existing WG" -> "Develop such work items that are not in the scope of an existing OPS area WG"? It doesn't seem right to declare OPSAWG to be a catch-all for any work from anywhere within the IETF. I feel the existing text leaves open that interpretation, though.
This charter is refreshingly short, clear in its objective, and keeps things nice and simple. Just a small comment on the text: " Examples include the advancement of documents on the standards track, application statements, maintenance, and minor extensions of documents that were developed in working groups that have concluded, e.g., IPFIX, network or service level YANG modules, and tools for the Operations and Management Area. " The word “minor” caught my attention. It might be open to interpretation and could lead to debates later on about what qualifies as "minor" versus something more substantial. Would it make sense to drop that word to avoid any unnecessary restrictions or ambiguity down the line?
This charter needs milestones prior to final approval.