ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

2014-12-27 03:28:29
On 2014-12-27, at 03:24, Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

The third is that the proposal for a single mega-area that handles all 
upper-layer protocols and transports does not strike me, personally, as that 
well thought out.  The reality is that there are multiple contexts within the 
upper layers and that the overlap those contexts have is often at the border 
with the lower layers, rather than with each other.  The result of that is 
that finding someone who understands the full context of the work within the 
mega area will be difficult.  Within the APPs area that used to result in the 
area having a "web AD" and a "messaging AD"; making an upper layer body which 
then informally has a "web AD", a "messaging AD", a "VoIP AD" and a 
"Transport AD" thus seems likely to result.  Why it is better for that to be 
informal, rather than formalized into areas doesn't get set out that well in 
the statement you've given, and if that isn't the expectation, more 
explanation of how you expect that to work would be valuable.  I'm also, 
frankly, concerned that it will look to the rest of the industry like the 
IETF is minimize the importance of the work in those contexts.  That would be 
a very bad result indeed.

+1

Will have more feedback after the holidays.

Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail