Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:04:24 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-04: No Objection

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12:07:22 -0400

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

If a topic transitions from small to big, then a recharter is needed to
include it.
I disagree that small equates to non-important.  I don't have a better word
than small
- particularly teamed with the example.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>