On 6/24/2012 2:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
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 :)
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
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. > ----- 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.