datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Applications Area Working Group
charter-ietf-appsawg-01

Snapshots: 01
Charter for "Applications Area Working Group" (appsawg) WG
WG State: Active
Charter State:
Responsible AD: none

Send notices to: none
Last updated: 2010-10-26

Other versions: plain text

Charter charter-ietf-appsawg-01

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).