IETF 81 Proceedings

Introduction  |  Area, Working Goup & BoF Reports  |  Plenaries  |  Training  |  Internet Research Task Force

Internet Area Working Group (intarea) (WG)

No Minutes Submitted  | Audio Archives  |  Jabber Logs  |  Mailing List Archives

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea

Chair(s): Julien Laganier Suresh Krishnan Internet Area Director(s): Ralph Droms Jari Arkko Internet Area Advisor: Jari Arkko

Meeting Slides

No Slides Present

Internet-Drafts:

• Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field (0 bytes) Failed to copy /a/www/ietf-ftp/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-04.txt
• IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes (0 bytes) Failed to copy /a/www/ietf-ftp/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt

Request for Comments:

• Issues with IP Address Sharing (RFC 6269) (71660 bytes) Failed to copy /a/www/ietf-ftp/rfc/rfc6269.txt
• Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers (RFC 6302) (10039 bytes) Failed to copy /a/www/ietf-ftp/rfc/rfc6302.txt
• IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage (RFC 6398) (44914 bytes) Updates RFC 2113,RFC 2711 Failed to copy /a/www/ietf-ftp/rfc/rfc6398.txt

Charter (as of 2011-08-18)

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.

Goals and Milestones:

May 2010		Submission of IPID document to the IESG as PS
Aug 2010		Submission of tunneling issues document to the IESG as Info
Aug 2010		Submission of tunneling security issues document to the IESG as Info