>While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of consensus do not belong on a WG page.
Where do they belong? I prefer that they belong under the Area page, but is there an area page, not sure why was that not a good idea. > But, if the document was the result of > consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think > that > perhaps it should appear there anyway. > I agree, but still I think an area page is required, some day in the future may be the Area will expire or be changed by the community, so don't we should think where is the history of these areas. Also our procedural RFCs and BCPs are not related to General Area, I prefer to see them all under an area related, some day this general area may change as well (may be called Procedural Area). I agree that the way documents are related to IETF-fields or IETF-areas is not an easy way for tracking information, also the documents are not much connected but more separated (IETF is divided in WGs which creates division/differences in documents of the same field). As once one AD proposed Cross-Areas in IETF, I want to add proposing Cross-WGs, all are responsible for related issues in IETF (i.e. Areas and Groups). AB
