Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling
charter-ietf-teas-02

[Ballot comment]
Small tweak to acknowledge centralized controllers e.g. YANG work (APIs).
TEAS uses the term "ACTN" (Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered
Networks). And recognition of new working groups since last charter, LSR
(for ISIS and OSPF), DETNET, SFC, and SPRING.

Changes can be viewed here:
Go to the history tab of the charter document itself:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-teas/history/>

[Ballot comment]
Small tweak to acknowledge centralized controllers e.g. YANG work (APIs).
TEAS uses the term "ACTN" (Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered
Networks). And recognition of new working groups since last charter, LSR
(for ISIS and OSPF), DETNET, SFC, and SPRING.

[Ballot comment]
Small tweak to acknowledge centralized controllers e.g. YANG work (APIs). TEAS uses the term "ACTN" (Abstraction
and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks). And recognition of new working groups
since last charter, LSR (for ISIS and OSPF), DETNET, SFC, and SPRING.

[Ballot comment]
No objection on the charter, but a clarification question:

6. YANG models for a Traffic Engineering Database in coordination
    with working groups working on YANG models for network
    topology and for technology-specific network attributes.

In the end, where will the topology YANG model (the base model, not the TE extension) be standardized?
In I2RS? If it's the case, shouldn't you add I2RS in "The TEAS WG will coordinate with the following working groups:"

[Ballot comment]
"The TEAS WG will work on the following topics:"
It seems like a list of deliverables.
I understand it's not, as the deliverables are part of the list "The TEAS working group is chartered to deliver the following:", which is a subset (or phase 1) of the first list AFAICT.

Proposal:
OLD:
"The TEAS WG will work on the following topics:"

NEW:
"The TEAS WG is responsible for:"


There is a discrepancy between

f) Definition and extension of management and security techniques
    for RSVP-TE signaling. This includes YANG and MIB modules for
    configuring and monitoring RSVP-TE as well as mechanisms used
    to configure, control, and report OAM within TE networks.


and

6. YANG models for a Traffic Engineering Database in coordination
    with working groups working on YANG models for network
    topology and for technology-specific network attributes.

Do you really want YANG and MIB?

NEW:

Definition and extension of management and security techniques
for RSVP-TE signaling, includes configuring and monitoring RSVP-TE
as well as mechanisms used to configure, control, and report OAM
within TE networks. YANG and MIB modules may be considered.

[Ballot comment]
Fine charter, I wonder just if this should mention any coordination with the RSVP directorate when talking about RSVP-TE, since the charter mentions a number of contact points with other WGs

[Ballot comment]
"Requirements" appear in work items 2 and 5. Since we've had recent discussions about whether we want to require publication of "requirements", I was wondering if we might consider re-wording those a bit to not appear to require said publication. No objection to external review, though.

[Ballot comment]
Purely editorial:
In the lettered list, items a thru d do not have verbs, and items e and f do.  I don't care which way it goes, but I'd prefer to see the list items all be parallel -- all without verbs, or all with, and not a mixture.