Subject: [apps-discuss] Fwd: WG Review: Applications Area Working Group (APPSAWG)

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:31:17 -0600

FYI.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: WG Review: Applications Area Working Group (APPSAWG)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Applications Area.  The
IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft charter
was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please
send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by Tuesday,
October 5, 2010.

Applications Area Working Group (APPSAWG)
------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Last updated: 2010-09-24

Chair(s): TBD

Applications Area Directors:
 Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
 Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>

Applications Area Advisor:
 Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists: TBD

Description of Working Group:

The Applications Area Directors sometimes receives proposals for the
development of specifications dealing with application-related topics
that are not in scope for an existing working group and do not justify
the formation of a new working group.

The Applications Area Working Group (APPSAWG) can serve as a forum for
such work in the IETF.  The APPSAWG accepts work items in accordance
with the  consensus of the Working Group and the best judgment of the
Applications Area Directors, who are responsible for updating the
working group milestones as needed.  The working group meets if there
are active proposals that require intensive discussion.

Work items that are appropriate for the APPSAWG mostly fall under the
following topics:

(A) Well-defined security issues that are relevant to multiple
application technologies (e.g., draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check).

(B) Small-scale additions to the protocol stack for HTTP and other
application technologies, mostly related to service discovery and
meta-data (e.g., RFC 5785, draft-nottingham-http-link-header, and
draft-hammer-hostmeta).

(C) Selected other work items addressing topics that historically fall
within the Applications Area, such as calendaring, date and time
formats, HTTP, internationalization, language tags, MIME, URIs and XML.

When considering whether to accept a proposed work item, the APPSAWG and
the Applications Area Directors shall take into account the following
factors, among others:

(1) Whether the WG has consensus on the suitability, importance, and
projected quality of the proposed work item.

(2) Whether there is core team of WG participants with sufficient energy
and expertise to advance the proposed work item according to the
proposed schedule.

(3) Whether there are enough WG participants who are willing to review
the work produced by the document authors or editors.

(4) Whether the Area Directors judge that wider input is needed before
accepting the proposed work item (e.g., from the IESG, IAB, or another
standards development organization).

(5) There is no existing related Working Group that is willing to
recharter to take on this work, and the document doesn't justify the
formation of a new working group.

In order to evaluate success of this WG, it is deliberately limited in
its duration. The WG needs to close or be rechartered to remove this
restriction before July 2011.

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:01:24 +0200

I think that the order of the list of considerations is unfortunate, as it might
be read as implying precedence.  I think that
(5) There is no existing related Working Group that is willing to
> formation of a new working group.
should come top of the list.

And the reference to URI I find unclear - I see that activity best performed on
 [email-masked]

Otherwise, yes, let's give it a try for nine months.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 7:31 PM
Subject: [apps-discuss] Fwd: WG Review: Applications Area Working Group(APPSAWG)

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:40:51 -0700

> And the reference to URI I find unclear - I see that activity best performed on

Hi Tom,

I think you're right that [email-masked] would be the right place to
discuss something
about the evolution of URIs.  The IRI working group is the right place
to discuss the
internationalization issues there, and [email-masked] the right
place to propose
a new scheme.  But when I saw "URIs and XML", I assumed that this working
group would cover questions of how to apply them in a specific
context, rather than
taking on work to change them.  If it did run across something that
needed a major
change, it would likely be moved off into a different (or new) group.

Does that match others' expectations?

regards,

Ted