Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Marcelo,

> My main concern is that since by definition, the scope is loosely 
> defined, we may end up collecting documents that have little interest 
> (i.e. there were not enough interest to form a WG for instance, as 
> opposed to what i understand the goal is, to work on documents that 
> there is interest but don't have a clear home).
>
> So, i think having a WG is fine, but it is very important to properly 
> measure the interest on working on each document adopted, since we may 
> end up having a collection of one man efforts in this context.

I fully agree that the group should only work on topics that do have 
general interest. We intend to be strict about adopting work. I also 
believe that we've been historically strict; here are the documents that 
I can recall we handled over the last four years: RFC 4727 (IANA 
experimental values for IP), RFC 4843 (IPv6 KHIs), RFC 4884 (extended 
ICMPs), RFC 5227 (IPv4 DAD), RFC 5350 (router alert IANA rules), 
draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered, draft-touch-intarea-tunnels, 
draft-touch-ipv4-unique-id and I don't quite remember where RFCs 4581 
and 4982 (bug fixes to SEND specifications) were developed, but there 
was some discussion on our list at least.

This group is definitely not the place to adopt work that, e.g., failed 
to gain support elsewhere or is just something that one individual wants 
to do. I will add some words to the charter to make this clearer.

In short, just because we intend to formalize the existence of the WG, 
it does not follow that we will take on large numbers of drafts in the 
program. The group has a dual nature. But it is first and foremost a 
discussion forum for area-wide topics, not an RFC publication venue for 
new things even if publish a document now and then.

Jari