Proposing to create an IETF WG in the general area

Abdussalam Baryun <> Sun, 24 June 2012 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1FA21F859F; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5+NWEG4ggUrK; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD47B21F854D; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1712959vbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4O9JGHEmaJUz98z80UI1t9lOhzZLN1uktn8mFQln0wY=; b=CiGJXvM71VLrk+KtEOMjGa7+HB9EvjbvxPxqVBwXK1KKQQiOdTqKaqlxDzn4iUC9Sq AJVBk8yBP2bomo7gteNmCMTkirBDkKNEUVIx95tLJN1zvIMWkknJJcODH3LMyp1tdZZ1 UZrzRChRR80wpBHmHJgavwMyUV93rfFkUOPe35LkegtvVa2SzogDPQ2ApFscuJU4CqLc TGib7gLc3su7JUwRvx0veSiEmDcpoEOeyIcbl85a51AegskRRsVQeWgh1PjJMx40bnF7 fulQADd4WDcu11S9RBMFF6QyG3G4ePN/gZUNY9Vnl3gSOFu/8MTxmBGwY1ivIvHohW7L d8Yg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id j16mr4909329vcw.55.1340528963111; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:09:22 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Proposing to create an IETF WG in the general area
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: ietf <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc:,, "" <>,,
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 09:09:28 -0000

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 :)


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. >