[ippm] Re: [bmwg] Charles Eckel's No Objection on charter-ietf-bpm-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Charles,
Thanks for your review.
We have addressed your comments in the new version of the charter (see https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-bpm%2Fwithmilestones-00-00.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-bpm%2Fwithmilestones-00-01.txt&difftype=--html)

Please find my further replies inline tagged as [GF]

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Eckel via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 12:14 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [bmwg] Charles Eckel's No Objection on charter-ietf-bpm-00-00: (with COMMENT)

Charles Eckel has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-bpm-00-00: 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-bpm/



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

Combining the WGs to form this new one seems a good idea to me. I have a few comments.

- Clarify what is meant by "vulnerable metrics".

[GF]: We have tried to clarify this sentence in the new version by highlighting that the methods do not directly affect Internet security and privacy.

- I am not sure of the intended meaning of, "YANG data models for configuration, operation, and IPFIX entities for Network Telemetry data export." Perhaps reword as, "YANG data models for configuration and operation, and IPFIX entities for network telemetry data export."

[GF]: Done, thanks for the suggestion.

- The "Submit RFC7799bis... (Best Current Practice)" milestone is the only one with no linked draft in the Associated Documents column. Is this because no draft exists yet, or is it an oversight?

[GF]: Yes, there is a draft but still individual (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-ippm-rfc7799bis/)

- +1 to Éric's comments

Nits

- s/designed as such that/designed such that

- s/Where in lab/In lab

- s/Where in production/In production

[GF]: Ok 

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]