Talk:Archive:Internetworking Subgroup

Formation of the Internetworking subgroup

This subgroup was originally named the "Internet subgroup." Its name was changed to resolve a collision between the name of its main article and that of an existing article. Dan Nessett 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading things right, it seems that the title, internetworking subgroup, is not going over well. It does seem however, that Internet subgroup, has support. Maybe we should go back to Internet subgroup? D. Matt Innis 17:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this thing still not dead yet?

Why does this group still exist? Can't we just kill it? It's really very simple: there's no reason for it. "Internetworking" is an obscure term that does not relate to the intended purpose of this subgroup. Why not just have an Internet subgroup and a Computer Networking subgroup? The whole point of workgroups is to help authors and editors work together. If someone wants to, say, seek approval for an article on DHCP or DNS or IPv6, they would seek approval from someone with expertise in computer networking. You can go and do degrees on Computer Networking and be taught by Professors of Computer Networking. It's also completely clear what is meant: it's the networking of computers. Whether that means hooking three or four PCs together in a LAN or the more complex architecture of large-scale systems like the Internet, you are networking computers together. "Internetworking"? You mean like "working on the Internet"? And, I'm just a layman, but as far as I can tell, the concepts and ideas are much more similar than they are different.

Can anyone tell me why - if we need subgroups in the Computing Workgroup - we shouldn't have an Internet Subgroup and a Computer Networking Subgroup? The latter could focus on technical issues related to networking at any scale from the Internet on down, while the former could focus on the technology, protocols, applications, business, economics, sociology/social context, use, intellectual reaction and so on of the Internet. Of course, there is crossover here: something like IPv6 is obviously something networking folk will have a lot to say about, but there's also the politics of adoption - all those tinny little ADSL routers that need upgrading - and even some economic literature speculating on how the end of IPv4 address space will create a new market in addresses. On the other hand, all those sociologists and anthropologists studying Facebook - that's not really Computer Networking, but is it "Internetworking"? Who knows? –Tom Morris 06:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would kill it.

Internetworking actually has a reasonably well defined, if specialist meaning, and, arguably, the Internet infrastructure is an example of it. Formally, it's the interconnection, such that they work, of computer networks using different technologies, or at least under different technical administration. Border Gateway Protocol is the mechanism for making dissimilar autonomous systems internetwork in the context of the Internet, although Routing Policy Specification Language is a way of expressing the problems to be solved. (ahem...I have written books on this).

One problem is that we've never really defined the Media vs. Journalism workgroup boundaries, and whether the sociological, etc., interactions of "new media" belong there. There are no active Editors in either. Apropos of such things as small and home office broadband routers (ADSL is in decline), that's interdisciplinary with Economics; see telecommunications provider economics as a start. Value of networks is at a higher level.

Coincidentally, before I saw your note, I sent an email to another Computers Workgroup Editor about reviewing the article structure and relationships. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How would you "kill" it? It seems to be dead (or unconcious) anyway. The CZ namespace has many documents which are no longer "alive". There has to be found a way how to archive them such that they do not pop up when one is looking for "current" information. (When a new Charter is implemented probably some more documents will die ...) Peter Schmitt 19:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As there were no articles within this group four years later, I have deleted it. John Stephenson 12:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)