Subject: [Supa] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-supa-00-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:43:12 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-supa-00-12: 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-supa/

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

I do not object, but I think the milestones are a bit agressive. 

I also think this could use some editorial clean-up:

-- paragraph 2: Inconsistent verb tense for WG activitites (  "defines a
data model",  "will not deal with the definition") Also, who are  "We"?
(Normally I don't object to "We" in IETF documents, but in this case it's
not clear if it refers to the IESG, the WG, or the IETF as a whole).

s/"This working group will be a success when"/"The working group will
have succeeded"  ; or "will have been a success"

s/"manner that will save development"/"matter that saves development"

"In the meantime, SUPA should not impede work in other working groups
while waiting for SUPA to produce its deliverables."

I _think_ that means that other groups will not delay their deliverables
to wait for SUPA? If so, I propose: "In the mean time, other working
groups should not delay their deliverables waiting for SUPA to complete
it's work"

s/it might do so/it may do so

s/ A document that explains.../ An explanation of...

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:23:33 +0200

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your review.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-supa/
You might be right. This is what the SUPA people hope for. We'll see.
> data model",  "will not deal with the definition")
Done.
> Also, who are  "We"?
OLD: We anticipate that processing that input will result in network 
configuration changes.
NEW: Processing that input most probably results in network 
configuration changes
> have succeeded"  ; or "will have been a success"
Done.
> s/"manner that will save development"/"matter that saves development"
Done.
> groups should not delay their deliverables waiting for SUPA to complete
I believe it works even if I don't control the other working groups.
> s/it might do so/it may do so
Done.
> s/ A document that explains.../ An explanation of...
Done.

See the diff between version 00-14 and 00-12 at 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-supa%2Fwithmilestones-00-12.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-supa%2Fwithmilestones-00-14.txt

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:54:45 -0500

Thanks, Benoit. The updated version looks good.

Ben.