Jari Arkko wrote:
Marcelo,
My main concern is that since by definition, the scope is loosely
defined, we may end up collecting documents that have little interest
(i.e. there were not enough interest to form a WG for instance, as
opposed to what i understand the goal is, to work on documents that
there is interest but don't have a clear home).
So, i think having a WG is fine, but it is very important to properly
measure the interest on working on each document adopted, since we
may end up having a collection of one man efforts in this context.
I fully agree that the group should only work on topics that do have
general interest. We intend to be strict about adopting work. I also
believe that we've been historically strict; here are the documents
that I can recall we handled over the last four years: RFC 4727 (IANA
experimental values for IP), RFC 4843 (IPv6 KHIs), RFC 4884 (extended
ICMPs), RFC 5227 (IPv4 DAD), RFC 5350 (router alert IANA rules),
draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered, draft-touch-intarea-tunnels,
draft-touch-ipv4-unique-id and I don't quite remember where RFCs 4581
and 4982 (bug fixes to SEND specifications) were developed, but there
was some discussion on our list at least.
Part of the past strictness, I think, has been that with two overworked
ADs as the unofficial WG chairs of the unofficial WG, there was a
natural squelching point for taking on new work.
I definitely see the possibility of feature creep here if we make the
group official and bring on additional management bandwidth. One of the
reasons Margaret and I started the intarea meeting to begin with is that
we wanted more cohesiveness and understanding of what was going on
across the intarea by everyone. I would not like to see that mission
taken over by the new WG becoming more focused on document advancement
than a forum to get updates on what is going on in different places.
The slippery slope here is what has already happened in other areas
where the "Area WG" meeting is actually separate from the "Area Open
Meeting" - perhaps that's where we are inevitably headed.
I'm not opposed to this change, but I don't want to see the original
mission lost in the process, or the WG becoming a home for lost work
items of little interest to the community.
- Mark
This group is definitely not the place to adopt work that, e.g.,
failed to gain support elsewhere or is just something that one
individual wants to do. I will add some words to the charter to make
this clearer.
In short, just because we intend to formalize the existence of the WG,
it does not follow that we will take on large numbers of drafts in the
program. The group has a dual nature. But it is first and foremost a
discussion forum for area-wide topics, not an RFC publication venue
for new things even if publish a document now and then.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
