Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 7, 2018, at 9:04 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Or, when no respective WG exists, the
> DHC WG may take on the option definitions work with approval from the
> responsible Area Director.

I would suggest that you just delete this.   If there is work of this type to do, the working group is already chartered to review it, and that's what's important.   There has to be some proponent or set of proponents who want to do the work in order for the work to happen; these are the people who should be doing the work.   If an AD approves of the work, that AD can sponsor the work.

I mention this because in many cases it may be the case that the AD who would sponsor the work would not be an INT AD, and so the current text is actually a bit restrictive—it places all the burden for deciding whether not to approve this type of work on the responsible AD for DHC (currently Suresh).   If the work is related to something that would be in Suresh's purview, then that makes perfect sense, but e.g. if it's a DHCP option to support some routing function, or something like that, I'd expect that the AD who would sponsor the work would be from the routing area.

If you do delete this, you should also update bullet point 3.

Bullet point 1 is pretty vague.  What are "operational considerations?"