Hi All,
I think there is a need to have at least one WG in the General Area
(GA). The question is: why we have a GA without focused work or
community representation? I understand from the IETF procedures that
this organisation works through WGs, so it can make progresses through
WGs. The GA has no WG, therefore, Does that mean the area is not
progressing or there is no work done in the area? Furthermore, the
general area related RFCs cannot be found under such IETF-tool-trac
like in other areas.
Proposed WG: will look into RFCs related to the area and to find out
what is missing, or how to direct/organise the GA's input decisions or
I-D submitted by the IETF community.
Overall, IMHO there are work done for the GA purposes but it is not
directed/organised by a IETF-WG, therefore, I propose to create a WG
for GA with a trac.tool to make progress efficient and easy to follow
up :)
Regards,
Abdussalam Baryun,
University of Glamorgan, UK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<In discussions one may be wrong, or may be right, but it does not matter
if we work together as a team to progress and resolve all open issues.
IETF WGs are always right, and they represent the IETF community. >