FWIW, I fully support creation of this new area. This is based both on the contents of Brian's note (though I agree with some of the followup about naming and what really goes in), and on private discussions I had with some of the ADs in Paris when the idea was still a proposal. I firmly believe that one of keys to getting the IETF to work better is to get more focus on key issues earlier in the process (e.g., WG formation, early architectural/sanity review, etc.). That happens best when there is active mananagement of the WGs as early as possible, e.g, when AD's are to some extent following the mailing lists in real time. One of the key benefits of the proposal is that it adds more IESG day-to-day focus to individual WGs. The reality today is that not enough of that is happening. :-( Decreasing the WG-to-AD ratio is a good thing to be doing, both for the WGs and for the individual ADs who are constantly juggling too many demands. While I do see that increasing the size of the IESG has some downsides, IMO, the benefits outweigh the downsides. Still, having said that, john.loughney@xxxxxxxxx writes: > If there was a way to lighten-up the IESG review process, then this > would be a good idea. For example, having a single DISCUSS per Area > would be one way to reduce this could be one solution. I agree that there would be value in looking at this question. But I don't believe creation of the new area should be gated on this. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf