Thank you for the feedback regarding the two different models for
organizing the INTAREA discussions. Ralph and I have discussed this and
decided to move forward with the one group model, i.e., with a group
that houses both area-wide discussions and documents. At least for now.
The suggested charter is given below and I hope that it reflects all the
detailed comments that we received. We have sent the charter to the
IESG, and if they like it, it comes back for a community comment period.
Jari
----
Internet Area Working Group (intarea)
Last modified: 2009-10-22
Chairs:
TBD
Internet Area (int) Directors:
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
Ralph Droms <[email protected]>
Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
Ralph Droms <[email protected]>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email protected]
Subscribe online at: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Description of Working Group:
The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts primarily as a
forum for discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire area. Such
topics include, for instance, address space issues, basic IP layer
functionality, and architectural questions. The group also serves
as a forum to distribute information about ongoing activities in
the area, create a shared understanding of the challenges and goals
for the area, and to enable coordination.
The Internet Area receives occasional proposals for the development
and publication of RFCs that are not in scope of an existing working
group and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The
INTAREA WG has a secondary role to serve as the forum for developing
such work items in the IETF. The working group milestones are updated
as needed to reflect the current work items and their associated milestones.
New work must satisfy the following conditions:
(1) WG consensus on the relevance for the Internet at large.
(2) WG consensus on the suitability and projected quality of the
proposed work item.
(3) A core group of WG participants with sufficient energy and
expertise to advance the work item according to the proposed
schedule.
(4) Commitment from the WG as a whole to provide sufficient
and timely review of the proposed work item.
(5) Agreement by the ADs, who, depending on the scope of the proposed
work item, may decide that an IESG review is needed first.
Milestones:
December 2009 Submission of IPID document to the IESG as PS
March 2010 Submission of tunneling issues document to the IESG as Info
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
