-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jari, although I was asked to complete an AppsDir review of this document, on reading it several times I realized that my feedback is more personal and less from the Apps Area perspective, so I am sending a more general message. On 2/6/13 4:49 PM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to > consider the following document: - 'Experiences from Cross-Area > Work at the IETF' <draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-02.txt> as > Informational RFC Section 3 begins: From an IETF participant's point of view, it is important that there is a working group where the technical topic that he or she is interested in can be discussed. I'm not convinced that IETF participants really care whether the institutional machinery of WG formation has been put in place. In my experience, a fair amount of interesting work has happened outside of any WG (e.g., Jeff Hodges and I worked on RFC 6125 on a special-purpose IETF mailing list, not in a WG). As long as there's some kind of venue, discussion can occur. A related note on the following sentence in Section 1: If the work is interesting, the necessary people come to the meetings and work on the specifications. Well, meetings (in the sense of WG sessions, or even IETF meetings) aren't truly necessary if there is some other appropriate venue available. IMHO, Section 2 could benefit from examples of cross-area work involving RAI and Apps. Current and recent WGs include PRECIS (with involvement from Apps, RAI, Security, and Ops/Mgt), ALTO (straddling Apps and Transport), OAUTH (straddling Apps and Security), CORE (in Apps but with close connections to 6lowpan in Int), PAWS (it was an open question whether it would end up in Apps or Ops/Mgt), and current efforts to define multi-stream support in MMUSIC, CLUE, and RTCWEB. The Apps and RAI AD can probably provide further insight here. In Section 3: Cross-area work is needed, of course, in any situation where a particular technical problem does not cleanly map to one organization. Is an IETF area truly an "organization"? Isn't the organization here the IETF? In Section 4: But it is also possible that concerns raised in one forum are not understood in another, and this can lead to an effort going forward after finding the "lowest bar" forum to take it up. By "forum" you seem to mean "IETF area". OLD Similarly, requests for cross-area review are relatively infrequent or sent only to a particular subset of people in an area (such as a directorate). NEW Similarly, requests for cross-area review are relatively infrequent or sent only to a particular subset of people in an area (such as a directorate or related working group). I tend to agree with Benoit that the scope of, and audience for, the suggestions in Section 4 are not particularly clear. Unfortunately, I do not yet have actionable suggestions for improvement. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRHantAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pVaQQAJ9KVAlQi0gCB5Y7EI0+D2JR O0LfIHyoFYQ532iuEvmsmngZfhg3kOYq8VmvsUQJmLs+ipIrOdH8jbJFmmZIHUXv HwX3E6H+pRpE0b4RLMMBa0qIOZmL0QmaxhkoSTre6OP5x10WT3OrmoBIY/56yiJ5 7TvTjET+MNOj0B6shO6bGzI/q5xUuRkDlP5/d4beD5VMDjXFFkcI6eHoXteVLlel DxAElJrmRWmpGs9Wqo9YABgdvVDGBUKwqR4ap1+9kIAi68nighu3BWLmBw2nRJXi eLA5jR7ZMvbVe+KD2hlE/3oG75QvcUNSBo/gh5NS1npPPl+xKng+1xgFus7XrAc0 KHBLuI39HwzHiNuybuLmFsuRlR1/Sxe8vqfK8nNYnddkGEe90a4O+Lq6TXnedDpY CJgsZnfk9MxAYFoGDKvLeVD5FN7dev0kUe+OdCrn6DlosHMUoOps3dYtMoyviEzv vx/qijxSIi5dvztWWrEvB816rjSg4KCm67rgfNtIW2YiVyZT0QoLFZdNt2+J6H2w OaxUYK0A4sE0Zk+eXcXaK2HVo3twG/CGnTYyDI7/u+dEfTNzePxxXHDavT5gQ8jl /xBDTzyD/2mbh1zeJb2ea6Dv7OYhg1NVj7F8DCaST9lJHdF6eEICBQe9X29X2gHm NYlQwrYXJ/TIvc2U1Oyd =cXfj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----