[Raw] Magnus Westerlund's Block on charter-ietf-raw-00-00: (with BLOCK)

Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 23 January 2020 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: raw@ietf.org
Delivered-To: raw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92513120178; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:24:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: raw-chairs@ietf.org, raw@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.116.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <157977506754.22708.16966215934432538803.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:24:27 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/3-EWuQm6vb5zAuNw-WwMhQKVPts>
Subject: [Raw] Magnus Westerlund's Block on charter-ietf-raw-00-00: (with BLOCK)
X-BeenThere: raw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: reliable and available wireless <raw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/raw>, <mailto:raw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/raw/>
List-Post: <mailto:raw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:raw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw>, <mailto:raw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:24:27 -0000

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-raw-00-00: 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:


This is not a particular hard Block. However, I think the sum of the comments
from the IESG recommends substantial rewording on the charter before it going
out for external review. I at least would like to see the reworked charter
before giving it a go-ahead to sending it out for external review. I personally
are especially interested if it can be clarified what the WG actually is
expected to produce.

I also have to ask the question, is Routing the right area? A lot of the text
appears to talk about issues that would be more at home in INT? This appears to
take a more architectural gap analysis. I understand that there is overlap into
both areas. However, if the target is to produce a gap analysis to figure out
where there are short comings in the IETF suit of protocols, are there going to
be any effort into identifying issues using this network for transport

The LDACS text appears to implicitly indicate that the WG should consider how
to provide an IP solution for them. If such work is to be done I think that
needs its own home. Can the below part be changed to not imply such work:

" The Aeronautical standards work on a physical layer and data
link layer for data communications is reaching maturity and there is
significant interest in developing an IP connectivity solution."