IETF 80 Proceedings

Introduction  |  Area, Working Goup & BoF Reports  |  Plenaries  |  Training  |  Internet Research Task Force

Applications Area Working Group (appsawg) (WG)

No Minutes Submitted  | Audio Archives  |  Jabber Logs  |  Mailing List Archives

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg

Chair(s):

Applications Area Director(s):

Applications Area Advisor:

Meeting Slides

No Slides Present

Internet-Drafts:

No Request For Comments

Charter (as of 2011-04-05)

The Applications Area sometimes receives proposals for the development
of specifications dealing with application-related topics that are not
in scope for an existing working group and do not justify the formation
of a new working group.

The Applications Area Working Group (APPSAWG) can serve as a forum for such
work in the IETF. The APPSAWG accepts work items in accordance with the
consensus of the Working Group and the best judgment of the Applications
Area
Directors, who are responsible for updating the working group milestones
as needed. The working group meets if there are active proposals that
require intensive discussion.

Work items that are appropriate for the APPSAWG mostly fall under the
following topics:

(A) Well-defined security issues that are relevant to multiple
application technologies (e.g., draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check).

(B) Small-scale additions to the protocol stack for HTTP and other
application technologies, mostly related to service discovery and
meta-data (e.g., RFC 5785, draft-nottingham-http-link-header, and
draft-hammer-hostmeta).

(C) Selected other work items addressing topics that historically fall
within the Applications Area, such as calendaring, date and time
formats, HTTP, internationalization, language tags, MIME, URIs and XML.

When considering whether to accept a proposed work item, the APPSAWG and
the Applications Area Directors shall take into account the following
factors, among others:

* There is no existing related Working Group that is willing to recharter
to take on this work, and the document doesn't justify the formation
of a new working group.

* Whether the WG has consensus on the suitability, importance, and
projected quality of the proposed work item.

* Whether there is a core team of WG participants with sufficient energy
and expertise to advance the proposed work item according to the proposed
schedule.

* Whether there are enough WG participants who are willing to review
the work produced by the document authors or editors.

* Whether the Area Directors judge that wider input is needed before
accepting the proposed work item (e.g., from the IESG, IAB, or another
standards development organization).

Goals and Milestones: