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

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-raw/



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

I am usually wary of chartering WGs to produce supporting documents such as use
cases and requirements.  On one hand I believe these documents are important to
the eventual solutions work.  On the other hand, it concerns me that the
solutions might be delayed while the support documents work through
publication, or that the support documentation might loose their relevance
during that time.  In this case, addressing the applications of a
new-to-the-IETF community, and producing documents that may be of external
interest is important.  There are a couple of related details that I would like
to see specifically addressed in the charter (+ milestones):

- The timeframe is short (12-18 months), but the list of work items is
significant.  The milestones need to be properly prioritized and closely
managed.

- Specifically related to Use Cases, the text says that "the Use Case document
may consist of one or more documents".  One of the milestones should point to a
date when no more use cases will be accepted in the WG -- this is to avoid late
submissions from not letting the WG continue/finish the work in the short
timeframe.

- The text about the "documents may exist individually or on a git repository"
hints at the possibility of not publishing all the documents as RFCs, but it is
not explicit about it.   I would like the Charter to explicitly talk about
alternate publication mechanisms, and, if possible, define upfront which
documents should be published as RFCs and which shouldn't.  Guiding the WG to
make those decisions early, and empowering the Chairs (in the Charter) to
enforce them is important.

Other comments:

- Is there a reference to the "Aeronautical standards work"?  Is it important
to coordinate with the body producing them?

- The third paragraph mentions "these new applications" at least 3 times...but
there is no clear indication of what those are, except for the "One critical
application is Aeronautical Data Communications."  If the work wants to be
scoped and focused, then the charter should be a little more specific about the
applications.

- [nit] "The RAW Working Group will also examine..."  Start a new paragraph
there...