Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 January 2015 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E101AD376 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:40:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ztQcwArq11Ee for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B631AD370 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p10so6819999wes.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:40:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Qax//Qm+5+qJOy8uME9X6tp1y9UGIwwjZf7FdzmcPPE=; b=kwEbFpJEDEdXDRuhgKW47ne1KTdvr+Pir+w1RvIIUdtRpH2jvJhtmzGGcrRV84Vzpj 9nCvR5lAOaNVggiBj1aVzUazvTo3xu5FycQAFOEqfSS7rxnb5N+NxF26X70HGz33E+7l bSDcKhK0a4d12lwvcYJ4w7ufKWQM3uT9K7z2bQfRIosWNnTdIYoGLoZAwpeTCfLBEHFJ jCxh+n5z5+EhFqVlqboRYfCAKgbdzUgRXmfwVRYWiq01ZbfYrpJCBGPK8KVKKaDl6g0M np6A5uX4zMWVYbe0jdN7e0XOim9f83n39/zn+hArwgO3vfaYXUVNLUYwhrzFuNbB4tPK PN4g==
X-Received: by 10.194.63.206 with SMTP id i14mr2871059wjs.107.1421660412779; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.251.208] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wa5sm16575188wjc.8.2015.01.19.01.40.11 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 01:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR0201MB09604D5A8DBF0D315E6DA7BAC34A0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:40:09 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <33740FEA-AEA1-4933-A17C-50B92C7619F0@gmail.com>
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <54AC505B.8090802@nostrum.com> <8EFCB6B4-0D95-459E-A316-DB29C3945A33@cooperw.in> <DM2PR0201MB09604D5A8DBF0D315E6DA7BAC34A0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wS95vNszkQzAL3Ca9wEALMNIQJw>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:40:15 -0000

Hi, Larry.

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:28 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> In the APP, RAI, TSV area reconfiguration, a suggestion to consider:
> 
> Carve out a "WEB" area which covers work that should coordinate with browsers and W3C.   Other apps (real-time or not) and transport questions could be one super-group which wouldn't be as big as all three.  
> 
> In Web: HTTP, URI/URL, WebRTC
> In non-Web: email, xmpp
> Could go either, but better in WEB:  MIME, encodings
> 
> The idea is to improve alignment and coordination, and get more participation.

What started this process was that there was not enough work in APP to justify a whole area. What you are suggesting here is a mini-area with around 5 working groups. Doesn’t this make it worse?

Yoav