Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

Nico Williams <> Sun, 28 December 2014 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3AB1ACEE1; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 01:20:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.233
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A34ZM_yF4aOr; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 01:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF451ACEDF; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 01:20:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3DF40122434; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 01:20:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=s4pgLZkBUbI+QV LXsLKfX1HYgRU=; b=lgCP7joPCQLZjM6GNcRcgJcaLo+Susm8GjHw9cphmBDpYG +2ySaBhCufVm2q9f0Ye2PITzBxmnpGWR40wkg5XTYw3XD6tUgqT3rP+w/veemJoU 8YZEV8Rfuhv9hPoYQd+NZK8TjlN1X2IDEfPGcJDiobZgRGGBSYvIZevMt5r3w=
Received: from localhost ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D7BEE4012242C; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 01:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 03:20:12 -0600
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Message-ID: <20141228092007.GA24442@localhost>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: IETF-Discussion list <>, Jari Arkko <>, IESG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:20:14 -0000

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 05:24:23PM -0800, Ted Hardie 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.  [...]
>                                                        [...].  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.  [...]

That's my take as well: if formal areas are too difficult to manage,
then get rid of them altogether as a formal organizing principle.

One concern that might come up then is: will each assignment of an IESG
members (no longer "ADs") to WGs become a matter of debate for the IETF?
That would be death by a thousand paper cuts.

IMO: lose areas as a formal organizing principle, design a light-weight
process for "AD" assignments to WGs, move on.

'Areas' as an organizing principle are... distracting -- at least some
areas that exist or are being proposed are.  I rougly know what areas
named "transport" or "security" are and what fits there.  But then you
look at the details and oddities pop up.  Just get rid of them.  But
keep the directorates!