Subject: [Int-area] intarea charter

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:26:17 +0300

All,

We have had Internet Area meetings for a number of years now, but I'm
not sure if anyone's noticed that its formally just a meeting and not
an official working group. We do have a list, we talk about important
topics during the meetings, and sometimes we even progress documents
that have no obvious home elsewhere. We run working group last calls,
but formally the documents that we take forward are AD sponsored
individual submissions.

Ralph and I have reviewed the situation and we think that it would
be useful to turn the group into an official working group. This
has a number of benefits:

- the group would show up in the tools.ietf.org/wg/<WG> directory
   and other systems

- we'd have a charter that describes to everyone what the group
   is supposed to talk about

- the process would be clearer for, say, adopting a document

- the ADs would get also a blue dot in their IETF badges :-) or
   depending on workload, we could hire other chairs, secretaries,
   and so on to help with the group

In other words, the group wouldn't be such a special case for
us to deal with. Thoughts? We have included a suggested charter
below.

Jari and Ralph

-----

Internet Area Working Group (intarea)

Last modified: 2009-09-30

Chairs:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>

Internet Area (int) Directors:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
Subscribe online at: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Description of Working Group:

The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts as a forum for
discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire area. Such
topics include, for instance, address space issues, basic IP layer
functionality, and architectural questions.

The Internet Area receives occasional proposals for the development
and publication of RFCs that are not in scope of an existing working
group and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The
INTAREA WG will also serve as the forum for developing such work
items in the IETF.

The working group milestones are updated as needed to reflect the
current work items and their associated milestones. Significant new
work items will be brought for approval with the IESG.

Milestones:

December 2009  Submission of IPID document to the IESG as PS
March    2010  Submission of tunneling issues document to the IESG as Info
December 2010  Submission of SEAL document to the IESG as Exp

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:34:00 -0700

Hi, Jari (et al.),

Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> be useful to turn the group into an official working group.
...

> us to deal with. Thoughts? We have included a suggested charter

Excellent idea.

The proposed charter and milestones look good to me. ;-)

Joe

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:52:09 -0700

Jari,

You had me nodding my head all the way until the last
proposed charter milestone on SEAL. Can't we have SEAL
sent to the IESG at a (much) earlier date than December
2010 - like maybe October 2009 instead? And isn't "Exp"
category aiming a bit too low when we already have an
earlier version of SEAL in the queue for publication
as Experimental?

Fred
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:26 AM
> To: Internet Area
> Subject: [Int-area] intarea charter
> 
> All,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:34:37 +0300

On the date: there is no penalty for finishing early. Or I could put in 
a more reasonable date if you have a suggestion.

On the document class: Admittedly I put Exp in a hurry and I knew this 
might not be right. Ralph has an ongoing question to the group about 
adopting the document as a work item, and doing some serious reviews on 
it. I think we need to get the input from the group on the right class. 
My own opinion is that experimental is not quite right because it would 
be repeating the same status as you already have on the RFC Editor 
submission. Then again, I'm not quite sure this it can be standards 
track either.

Jari

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:44:40 -0400

I support the idea of creating this WG, and the proposed charter looks  
good to me.

Margaret

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:10:42 -0700

Jari,

> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:35 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Internet Area
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter
> 

Suggesting a date would be beyond the scope of my
understanding of process, so I will refrain from
making any suggestions.

Thanks - Fred

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:00:19 +1300

+1, but I think you should consider "hiring" a co-chair who
isn't an AD at an early stage. It can get a bit awkward if a
document is proposed for adoption that the ADs are unhappy
about, unless there is an independent chair to make the consensus
call.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: "Laganier, Julien" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:52:57 -0700

I support creation of the WG for all the good reasons Jari listed below.
 
--julien

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:57:36 +0100

+1

Or if the AD's like a document that the WG does not.

- Stewart

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:19:10 -0700 (PDT)

I suggest continuing like before and using Int-Area as a means of discussing issues of common interest in the Internet area. And occasionally advance some documents.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> To: Internet Area <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:00:19 PM
> >> - the group would show up in the tools.ietf.org/wg/directory
> >> and other systems
> >>
> >> Jari Arkko 
> >> Ralph Droms 
> >> Jari Arkko 
> >> Ralph Droms 
> >> Jari Arkko 
> >> Ralph Droms

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:27:22 -0400

I am also opposed to Area Directors serving as WG chairs of WGs in
their own Area.

Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:31:27 -0700 (PDT)

Agree. Treating it like any other group with WG chairs
running the business, under AD supervison, makes more sense.

Sri

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:06:07 -0400

+1

dbh 

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:31 PM
> To: Donald Eastlake
> Cc: Internet Area
This
> >>>> Subscribe online at: 
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> >>>>
> >>>> March    2010  Submission of tunneling issues document 
> to the IESG as
> >>>> Info

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:34:43 -0400

I do support chartering this WG, but I have some concern about the  
milestone list...

I think it would be a good idea to get consensus in the intarea WG   
(once formed) that these items should be adopted as WG work items, and  
to determine that there is sufficient energy/interest to carry them  
forward, before adding them to the milestone list, just as we would  
with new items that are introduced in the future.  This would save us  
from the potential problem of having an item in the WG charter that  
the WG doesn't have rough consensus to advance and/or doesn't have the  
interest or energy to complete.

I also agree with comments about why it might be a better idea to  
choose non-AD chairs.

Margaret

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:47:18 -0400

+1

Regards,

Wassim H.
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter [[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 15:00
To: Internet Area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:59:48 +0300

Margaret,

> I do support the charter, but I have some concern about the milestone
> list...
>
> I think it would make sense to get consensus in the intarea WG that
> these items should be adopted as WG work items before adding them to
> the milestone list, just as we would with new items that are
> introduced in the future.

That's the idea. The list contained three items. Two (IPID, tunnel) have
been worked on by the group for some time. I think we have asked the
group about the interest to work on these, but given that we were not
operating as a working group the decision has not been as visible as it
would have in a working group. For instance, the draft name has not
changed. The third item (SEAL) is currently something that we are
considering adopting. Again, if we were a working group the process
would be much clearer.

And now I realize that the list is missing one item -- we've been
working on the ICMP unnumbered extensions which were returned to INTAREA
after significant IESG review comments.

In any case, we will make sure that there is an agreement to work on
every item in the list, either in the form of an earlier informal
decision (IPID, tunnel, unnumbered) or a new decision (SEAL). Does that
satisfy your concern?

Jari

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:56:40 +0200

Hi,

I think it is a good idea to create the WG.
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 think this does in line with the comments made by Margaret and i agree 
with the clarifications made to these comments.

Regards, marcelo