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

tglassey <> Sun, 24 June 2012 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E9021F861A for <>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.092
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.907, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6aY+SJIZmL+q for <>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBFA21F860B for <>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=lTxavvy07cxf6WBlDG+pex6gkS5q2E/G75/8uFAvZN7niYJYWf2oTRJjxB0cbMXl; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1SimmL-0004yj-Un for; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:23:02 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:22:53 -0700
From: tglassey <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Proposing to create an IETF WG in the general area
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec797aeda6796cbec53ae0f89ab6f094e202350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:23:06 -0000

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?

> 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 -
> 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.