[Roll] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-roll-04-06: (with COMMENT)

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-roll-04-06: 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-roll/



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

This charter looks fine to me, modulo a few nits I wondered about.

Perhaps "self routing configuration" might be clearer as "routing
self-configuration"? 

I was expecting "It will also need to consider the transport
characteristic the routing protocol messages will experience" to refer to
characteristics, plural. But I wonder if the sentence would be clearer as
"The workng group will consider the transport characteristics routing
protocol 
messages will experience". 

I'm sure "Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size" is correct,
but it seems counter-intuitive. Is there a better way to say what you
mean?

Is "the draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation Draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo" an Applicability Statement,
or did this mean something else? But I see that Mirja had a question
about the use of draft names that haven't been adopted. Perhaps it's
worth a pass substituting clearer descriptions for draft names?