Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input

It is my sense, perhaps jaundiced, that when the optical stuff came to the 
fore, the ATM folks of the world renamed ATM "MPLS" and decided that they 
would work on ATM whatever it was called and wherever the work was being 
done. Much of the sub-ip effort has been, in my view, literally that or has 
been repeatedly challenged to become that.
From what you said, it sounds like a large number, perhaps half, of the 
working groups are ready to complete within the coming year. There are 
likely to be two continuing working groups, ccamp and mpls. I'm not sure 
what the difference between those columns is: I think you're telling me 
that there are one or more working groups that will not complete soon and 
which are non-essential.
From my perspective, that tells me that we are really talking about two 
working groups a year from now - the rest either will have closed 
themselves or could be closed by IESG action. If that's what we are talking 
about, I would suggest planning quite literally to close the area a year 
from now, and leave it in status quo until then. I would also suggest 
aggressively managing the working groups that will not survive the change 
to ensure that they are either moribund or complete their work.