Subject: RE: [Tools-discuss] independant submissions that update standards track, and datatracker

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 19:09:52 +0100

>While I think that individual submissions that are not the result of
consensus do not belong on a WG page.

Where do they belong? I prefer that they belong under the Area page, but is
there an area page, not sure why was that not a good idea.

>  But, if the document was the result of
> consensus, but did not occur in a WG because the WG had closed, I think
> that
> perhaps it should appear there anyway.
>

I agree, but still I think an area page is required, some day in the future
may be the Area will expire or be changed by the community, so don't we
should think where is the history of these areas. Also our procedural RFCs
and BCPs are not related to General Area, I prefer to see them all under an
area related, some day this general area may change as well (may be called
Procedural Area).

I agree that the way documents are related to IETF-fields or IETF-areas is
not an easy way for tracking information, also the documents are not much
connected but more separated (IETF is divided in WGs which creates
division/differences in documents of the same field). As once one AD
proposed Cross-Areas in IETF, I want to add proposing Cross-WGs, all are
responsible for related issues in IETF (i.e. Areas and Groups).

AB

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 09:51:05 -0400

> Where do they belong? I prefer
    > that they belong under the Area page, but is there an area page,
    > not sure why was that not a good idea.

1) Please stop this discussion, or at least change the subject.

I don't think that one can have an independant submission that is standards
track, that is not the result of (at least IESG) consensus.

2) If you quote, please include attribution.