Subject: Proposing to create an IETF WG in the general area

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:09:22 +0200

Hi All,

I think there is a need to have at least one WG in the General Area
(GA). The question is: why we have a GA without focused work or
community representation? I understand from the IETF procedures that
this organisation works through WGs, so it can make progresses through
WGs. The GA has no WG, therefore, Does that mean the area is not
progressing or there is no work done in the area? Furthermore, the
general area related RFCs cannot be found under such IETF-tool-trac
like in other areas.

Proposed WG: will look into RFCs related to the area and to find out
what is missing, or how to direct/organise the GA's input decisions or
I-D submitted by the IETF community.

Overall, IMHO there are work done for the GA purposes but it is not
directed/organised by a IETF-WG, therefore, I propose to create a WG
for GA with a trac.tool to make progress efficient and easy to follow
up :)

Regards,

Abdussalam Baryun,
University of Glamorgan, UK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not matter
  if we work together as a team to progress and resolve all open issues.
  IETF WGs are always right, and they represent the IETF community. >

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:22:53 -0700

> for GA with a trac.tool to make progress efficient and easy to follow

Gen Area groups also functioned  as reception gateways for projects too 
meaning that the WG Manager in this group would be a lobbyist as well in 
passing new projects to other WG's once set up.

So then would this WG also be an incubator for projects?

Todd
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5089 - Release Date: 06/23/12
>
>

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:07:33 +0200

Hi Tidd and All,

The General Area WGs focus on IETF processes and policies, I don't
think projects are done there,

>So then would this WG also be an incubator for projects?

The IETF-WG I propose is only to do with IETF processes and policies
(procedures, and best practices), not incubator projects,

All organisations in the world have defined Business Information
System (BIS) that organises its procedure-policy, information and
processes. In IETF we have the BIS as well, but I don't see a clear
focused group (like in other organisation) on that updates/follow-ups
on the BIS for the future. Other organisation have a management
committee for this issue of procedure-updates. Therefore, a WG for
this purpose is necessary for two things 1) The WG job is only to
follow up with policy issues and if there is a need for update 2) so
that when a memebr wants to submit a I-D for to update/replace a
policy I can submit to IETF and a focused WG.

Please advise or provide your comments,

AB
=======

From: tglassey <tglassey at earthlink.net>
To: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:22:53 -0700

Gen Area groups also functioned as reception gateways for projects too
meaning that the WG Manager in this group would be a lobbyist as well
in passing new projects to other WG's once set up.
So then would this WG also be an incubator for projects?

Todd