Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-opsawg-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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-opsawg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
