Applications Area Working Group

Document Charter ART Area General Applications Working Group WG (appsawg)
Title Applications Area Working Group
Last updated 2010-10-26
State Approved
WG State Concluded
IESG Responsible AD Alexey Melnikov
Charter Edit AD (None)
Send notices to (None)


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).