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

Abdussalam Baryun <> Mon, 25 June 2012 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5906B21F8454 for <>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.59
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJ4E+SWzjE1F for <>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB8821F8452 for <>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so2302905vcq.31 for <>; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YcEBboihGL4quN4uiTvVyzKClA98pB+SvlG7gUYsPlQ=; b=jxijwTApita6yFPb5LN8yHdzGEsKxk0hS4V8pfq7PB21mCOy9J1yxvBNwxz1x/0yrk lcT+XHJQnwN1pCIn0ffpLukTKyIEIAZ8rC0w6IIwuSUL10+7uGoByl2sUstm90+7MQ1l OuyD4zA2NPpG6SOEM/lZdpKVCEQO37tvu+uBKVZxTouiY/XgcNfKz3yD9GdJDKj3yqNi ZaUhH1MZ3yKjSz5KXSGMzULAiAP5oQo0tSlzr5gpWQGOk/Z8bkGTdLnPgFQdE3icKlJC vtkS9s+Ub00X+xQZVcIn9wn17u8IhyRB3lUsGau7mopNL+jXfxtSUOW1iLPuZgKLvbgJ qlNg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id r15mr8233882vcv.1.1340636854072; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:07:33 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Proposing to create an IETF WG in the general area
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <>
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: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:07:45 -0000

Hi Tidd and All,

The General Area WGs focus on IETF processes and policies, I don't
think projects are done there,

>So then would this WG also be an incubator for projects?

The IETF-WG I propose is only to do with IETF processes and policies
(procedures, and best practices), not incubator projects,

All organisations in the world have defined Business Information
System (BIS) that organises its procedure-policy, information and
processes. In IETF we have the BIS as well, but I don't see a clear
focused group (like in other organisation) on that updates/follow-ups
on the BIS for the future. Other organisation have a management
committee for this issue of procedure-updates. Therefore, a WG for
this purpose is necessary for two things 1) The WG job is only to
follow up with policy issues and if there is a need for update 2) so
that when a memebr wants to submit a I-D for to update/replace a
policy I can submit to IETF and a focused WG.

Please advise or provide your comments,


From: tglassey <tglassey at>
To: ietf at
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:22:53 -0700

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?