Subject: Benoit Claise's Block on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-03: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:53:53 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-03: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Adrian's proposal actually made it to the latest proposed charter,
let me file a BLOCK.
> Just noticed something we should add:
> RTGWG would be a really good home for routing-related YANG models that
> are not specifically covered by other RTG working groups,
The sentence above is a good addition.
> and for generic
> routing YANG models.
But how is this different than "routing-related YANG models"?
I believe having those two categories adds to the confusion. Maybe
because I don't understand the difference.

Once this clarification is done, I support RTGWG. It's actually similar
to OPSAWG.

Regards, Benoit

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial point/

RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an
existing
working group. An example of a small topic is a draft that might
otherwise be
AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and consensus that
RTGWG
can provide.

Not sure "small" is the right adjective.
In OPSAWG, we had small topics that became big topics (example: 3 CAPWAP
documents, multiple EMAN documents that triggered the EMAN WG creation,
IEEE/IETF MIB relationship RFC). I would remove "small", which equates to
"non important"

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 11:54:09 -0400

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/

As I sent in another email, I can see some differences - but don't feel
strongly that
it adds anything.  I've updated the charter to remove the "generic routing
YANG models"
versus the routing-related ones.

Alia