Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

Jari Arkko escribió:
> 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.

Right,
In some WGs, the chairs require a number (5 for instance) of thorough 
reviews from non-authors to accept a WG document, which should reflect 
that at least 5 people care about this in a serious way. Of course, in a 
normal WG, there si already consensus that the work is needed cause that 
was part of the charter discussion, so since in this case, and the 5 
reviews are needed to verify the quality of the document. In this case, 
since the charter is opne, you would have both questiosn raised at the 
same time i.e. whehter we care about the topic and whehter the 
particular document is the right one, so probably the bar should be even 
higher.

Regards, marcelo


>
> 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
>
>