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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail