On 2014-12-27, at 03:24, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The third is that the proposal for a single mega-area that handles all upper-layer protocols and transports does not strike me, personally, as that well thought out. The reality is that there are multiple contexts within the upper layers and that the overlap those contexts have is often at the border with the lower layers, rather than with each other. The result of that is that finding someone who understands the full context of the work within the mega area will be difficult. Within the APPs area that used to result in the area having a "web AD" and a "messaging AD"; making an upper layer body which then informally has a "web AD", a "messaging AD", a "VoIP AD" and a "Transport AD" thus seems likely to result. Why it is better for that to be informal, rather than formalized into areas doesn't get set out that well in the statement you've given, and if that isn't the expectation, more explanation of how you expect that to work would be valuable. I'm also, frankly, concerned that it will look to the rest of the industry like the IETF is minimize the importance of the work in those contexts. That would be a very bad result indeed. +1 Will have more feedback after the holidays. Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail