Subject: [its] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-ipwave-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:18:28 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ipwave-00-01: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ipwave/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Further to Mirja, Kathleen, and Benoit's comments, I think this charter
needs to more explicitly declare what work is in scope for the WG before
the charter goes for external review. If I recall correctly the narrowing
of the scope down to v6-over-802.11-OCB (as the initial deliverable) took
several rounds of BoFs to achieve, and yet it still isn't clear from the
charter if that is the only standards track deliverable expected from
this WG before re-chartering, or if there is some wider space of
standards track specs that fall within the current charter.

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

What is a "general problem area"? Does this group really need both a
problem area and a problem statement? Do they really both need to be
RFCs, or will one or both serve their purpose as discussion documents for
the WG that can be bookmarked in the I-D repository once the WG comes to
consensus on them?