Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

t.p. <> Wed, 21 January 2015 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506281A1B28 for <>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:02:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.954
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VP9uHz5_YZ_p for <>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:02:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8166B1A1B24 for <>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:01:36 +0000
Received: from pc6 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:01:36 +0000
Message-ID: <002901d0359b$c0207520$>
From: t.p. <>
To: Larry Masinter <>, Yoav Nir <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:00:11 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is );
X-DmarcAction-Test: None
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005004);SRVR:DBXPR07MB254;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:DBXPR07MB254;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 04631F8F77
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(13464003)(51704005)(81686999)(76176999)(50986999)(62236002)(44716002)(122386002)(81816999)(106356001)(105586002)(61296003)(50226001)(42186005)(68736005)(92566002)(33646002)(84392001)(77096005)(47776003)(87976001)(93886004)(50466002)(66066001)(40100003)(64706001)(23676002)(1456003)(46102003)(19580395003)(19580405001)(101416001)(14496001)(97736003)(86362001)(77156002)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR07MB254; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB254;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2015 17:01:36.1535 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBXPR07MB254
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB448;
Archived-At: <>
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: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:02:01 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <>
To: "Yoav Nir" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 7:24 PM

> > What you are suggesting here is a mini-area with
> > around 5 working groups. Doesn’t this make it worse?
> Of current working groups I'd count 9.5, not 5,
> Appsawg .5, Httpbis, Hybi, Json, Urn, Websec, Rtcweb, Webpush, Jose,
> And perhaps some of OPS work, too.

While a count of WGs is one measure of the load on an AD, another,
suggested by reports from the IESG itself, would be of how many I-Ds are
being handled.  Thus a WG like v6ops, which might have 60 I-Ds on the
go, could be an order of magnituude harder to manage that appsawg, which
limited itself to six.  This could be quantified by running a script
against tools, to list for each WG how many I-Ds it has adopted and how
many others are currently listed as not yet adopted; and a trend of this
over time might be a measure of how well a WG is coping.

The length of time an I-D is in the system would be another measure of
the load on management so another script could measure how many months
it is from the date when an I-D was adopted to the present date, summing
all the values for a given WG.  Again, a trend over time could be a
measure of how well a WG is faring.

Tom Petch