Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-02 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-tvr-00-03 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### Paragraph 18 ``` Milestones ``` It would be good to indicate the intended standards level of these documents. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
No actual comment on the content charter - it looks fine to me. As a minor nit, the text was too wide when reviewing this on my tablet and the text didn't fold well. Perhaps worth reflowing the charter text to make the lines slightly shorter.
While I would love to ballot a strong supportive YES ballot, I am afraid that there are still some points that could be improved... "The models are expected" please qualify "the models" as in "The information model is expected" (I do not think that YANG will be useful for IS-IR or OSPFv3). "with other groups working on non-terrestrial networks", unsure whether "non-terrestrial" has a strict definition, moreover some use cases appear to rely on physical links. "based on the Information Model", while fully correct from the academic point of view, also establishes a chronological sequence that may put heavy constraints on the WG. Hope this helps, -éric