[Raw] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-raw-00-00: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 21 January 2020 21:01 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 E73A1120041; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:01:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper 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: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <157964046490.28967.7790241737460572796.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:01:04 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/ImidwuzBTeHGX90AAr885rtbhLg>
Subject: [Raw] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-raw-00-00: (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, 21 Jan 2020 21:01:05 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-raw-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:


I think it's possible to go to external review with this charter now, but I
think it would be much better to get clear answers to the questions Alvaro
raises in his ballot before putting it out to external review. I had many of
the same questions when reading this.

In particular, one rationale for publishing informational documents as RFCs is
to ease coordination with other SDOs. In this case it's unclear whether the
documents are intended to be published as RFCs, and the charter says there will
be no coordination with SDOs, including wherever the aeronautical standards are
being developed. This seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. If RFCs are
needed for alignment and coordination, then we should coordinate. And if not,
then I wonder whether drafts will be sufficient.