Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Sat, 27 December 2014 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887721AD4B2; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:28:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mBQXRaqTfj3B; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx61.netapp.com (mx61.netapp.com [216.240.31.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7E131AD4B1; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:28:02 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,650,1413270000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="27804769"
Received: from durexcmbx03-dr.hq.netapp.com ([10.102.107.49]) by mx61-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 27 Dec 2014 01:26:59 -0800
Received: from DUREXCMBX04-DR.hq.netapp.com (10.102.107.50) by durexcmbx03-dr.hq.netapp.com (10.102.107.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:26:56 -0800
Received: from DUREXCMBX04-DR.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by durexcmbx04-dr.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::e8a8:c186:82ed:f6ce%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Sat, 27 Dec 2014 04:26:56 -0500
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Thread-Topic: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Thread-Index: AQHQIHdU66HHK8Qui0yE9nczNXUAuZyjLN6AgABUh4A=
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 09:26:55 +0000
Message-ID: <AA9CB167-5A5C-4406-AFCE-30704009216A@netapp.com>
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <CA+9kkMBEcRiQA7R2DsU2bmWyR53hpmP=ywLOL3Mmgs5bBG4P9g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBEcRiQA7R2DsU2bmWyR53hpmP=ywLOL3Mmgs5bBG4P9g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
x-originating-ip: [10.120.60.35]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C597563-05D0-432B-95D0-985BC4CE2FCA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L0BP2gfxp3fKfAow-JBPhkPAWAQ
Cc: IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 09:28:06 -0000

On 2014-12-27, at 03:24, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> 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