Re: Proposing to create an IETF WG in the general area

[tglassey <[e-mail]>]

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.