Re: Last Call: <draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-02.txt> (Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF) to Informational RFC

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Reply to your request dated 07/02/2013
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)   Dated: 10/02/2013
Reviewed I-D -03 (latest)
Reviewer Comment #AB2: Rationale for Cross-Area Work
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The section 3 explains cross areas but involves the security which the
reviewer disagrees. Security is already discussed and examined in all
areas separately but in the Security Area it is discussed crossly or
specifically, we may think that security experts are already experts
of different areas in IETF. The reviewer beleive in IETF separate
areas as separated TCP/IP model layers, or Internet-Networks. However
comments for I-D's section 3 below;

>Section 3: Rationale for Cross-Area Work

>The area and the management structure matters little for this, as long as the working group can work on all of the relevant aspects.

AB> not sure why cross-area WG, why not Cross-area Area (e.g. for
Security we already have), it is more related to crossing areas, the
I-D is discussing cross areas not cross WGs. The cross-area Area can
have a general cross-area WG, and specific cross-WGs

>different groups of people at the IETF.

AB> different Working Groups, people in IETF are equal not different

>In other cases different types of individuals may have specific
expertise that is helpful to solve a problem.

AB> IETF has equal individuals, but they have different type of
experiences and different responsibilities.

>Another common example of a situation where two different areas of
expertise are needed is developing security features for a protocol.
The protocol specialists are needed to understand the application and
its requirements and the security specialists are needed to help with
understanding the possible security issues and potential solutions.
Such work is commonly not organized as cross-area work, however.

AB> outside the IETF structure, security concerns/issues are already
considering to crossing TCP/IP layers, however, I disagree that we
involve it as a cross-area WG, because IMHO in IETF the Security Area
SHOULD already be considering cross-ietf-areas.

AB> Why all Works/Documents in IETF MUST consider a Security Section?
It is already an IETF practice. The answer may be because this field
of experts is involved within all IETF Areas and future technologies.


Regards
AB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
This message is in compliance with the IETF regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> On 2/7/13, The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'Experiences from Cross-Area Work at the IETF'
>>   <draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-02.txt> as Informational RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2013-03-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>    This memo discusses the reasons for IETF work on topics that cross
>>    area boundaries.  Such cross-area work presents challenges for the
>>    organization of the IETF as well as on how interested parties can
>>    participate the work.  The memo also provides some suggestions on
>>    managing these challenges.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea/ballot/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>>
>