Re: Cost vs. Benefit of Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture Area

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Just for the record...

At 12:14 PM -0700 9/21/05, David Kessens wrote:
Note that the next proposal for an additional area is just around the
corner: the Internet area has a very heavy load of working groups as
well and the next thing that could easily be imagined is a Mobility
Area which also sounds very reasonable.

Are we going to tell them then that they cannot have their own area
while we just added another one for Real-Time Applications ?

I am very surprised by this statement... There is no proposal on the table to form a "mobility area" and I don't know of anyone who is discussing this. Mobility is quite close to the core of the Internet area, with close tie-ins to IP, addressing/address selection, multihoming, IP-in-IP tunneling, etc. I would personally object to the idea of trying to separate IP and Mobility into separate areas.

We did have a discussion within the IESG about whether adding a third AD to the Internet area would be valuable. I proposed this, because I believe that the Internet area, while generally being a coherent group, is quite large, and because I know that the nomcom has found it difficult to find two ADs who can fully cover the area, technically. The IESG did not reach consensus that adding a third Internet AD was a good idea, though, so we do not currently plan to propose that to the community.

Margaret



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]