[Raw] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-raw-00-02: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 04 February 2020 23:29 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 084171200B7; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 15:29:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana 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: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <158085899496.15681.5955595910954119251.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:29:54 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/IRV6UzmvrWdK_pu7dFL2pvJbRS0>
Subject: [Raw] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-raw-00-02: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 23:29:55 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-raw-00-02: 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-raw/



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

I support the first part of Alissa's BLOCK.

This may be a nit, but I still find this sentence a little confusing:
"Additional documents may be published or exist on a git repository, the
publication format will be agreed by the Working Group at the time the document
is adopted by the group."

The fact that the milestones point at RFCs seems to clarify the meaning of
"published"; but the alternative to an RFC ("published") is more akin to a
draft and not a document that exists in an external repository only.  IOW, I
would hope that if additional documents exist, that they do so either as an
internet-draft or an RFC.  This state is independent of the tools used for its
development.