Subject: [apps-discuss] Startup of the APPSAWG

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:23:23 +0800

As y'all may have seen, the IESG approved the creation of the
Applications Area Working Group (appsawg), and appointed Jiankang Yao
and me as working group chairs.  The charter is here:
   http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/appsawg-charter
In order to get things started, we need to do two things:

1. Set up procedures for how the working group will operate.

2. Choose some documents to work on.

To that end, we'll be having the first face-to-face meeting of the
appsawg during (as part of) the Applications Area open meeting at IETF
79, in the Monday morning slot (9 to 11:30 a.m., 8 Nov).  Email
discussion related to appsawg will happen on this mailing list, the
apps-discuss list.

For item 1, here's a set of sub-items the chairs think we need to decide:

1a. What criteria will we use to decide that a document should be
handled by appsawg?  Implicit in this is how we decide that the
document doesn't belong in an existing working group, and that the
authors shouldn't be working on forming a new one.  I note that it may
be the case that the ADs are already, by suggesting a document to us,
advising that they don't want a new working group for the work.  I
suggest that sometimes, part of this working group's job may be to
push back on that and say, "We disagree.  The scope of this work is
beyond what appsawg should be taking up, and you should reconsider
your advice to the authors."

1b. How can we ensure that we provide a reasonable level of review and
discussion of documents that come to us?  Who is willing to actively
participate?

1c. What will the exit criteria for documents be?  How will we be
satisfied that a document is done?

As for initial documents, the ADs have suggested the following ones,
and if there's time in Beijing to go over them and have some initial
discussion about adoption, we'll put them on the agenda.  Please try
to review them before then.

2a. draft-merrick-jms-uri
2b. draft-nottingham-http-portal
2c. draft-faltstrom-5892bis (update of IDNA to handle Unicode 6.0)

Comments on any of this prior to IETF 79 are also, of course, welcome.

Barry and Jiankang, your friendly neighbourhood chairs

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:25:44 +0000

Hi,

I won't be at your meeting, but some thoughts I have about your questions:

> your advice to the authors."

My first thought was that the criteria shouldn't be too rigid - there should be 
scope for judgement.  But having reasonably transparent grounds for rejection is 
also helpful.

Aside from any technical criteria, I'd suggest that having a reasonable 
expectation that the work can be completed in (say) 6 months (or some other 
reasonable figure) - if not, then a dedicated WG probably should be considered.

I think 1b and 1c also suggest acceptance criteria:
* interested and willing reviewers should be identified
* exit criteria should be clear before a documented is accepted.

> satisfied that a document is done?

Among other things, I'd suggest a time-box, so that if the work is not complete 
within a specified time, and support cannot be mustered again for re-acceptance 
of the work-in-progress documents according to the original accptance criteria, 
it automatically be dropped.

#g