This message was just posted to ietf-announce.
Since there may be people who read the ietf list faster than they read
ietf-announce, I thought I'd just repost it here.
It requests that discussion take place on the IETF list.
Harald
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: onsdag, desember 04, 2002 11:08:49 -0500
From: The IESG <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
IETF SUB-IP area
The IESG announced in November of 2000 that a new SUB-IP temporary
pseudo-area would be formed as a part of an effort to develop a
"systematic approach to dealing with what we used to describe as
"sub-IP" technologies." At the time the IESG said:
"Over the years the boundary between 'wires' and IP protocols has
become harder to define and the interaction has become more intertwined.
For example, what appear as 'wires' or 'circuits' in a virtual network
may in fact be routed datagrams in an underlying IP network. The
topology of dynamic underlying networks such as ATM and soon switched
optical networks can interact with IP-level traffic engineering and
routing. Additionally, with IETF technologies such as MPLS we are
defining a whole new class of 'wires'."
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/new-area.txt)
After the December 2000 IETF meeting and taking into account the
discussion at that meeting the IESG formed a "temporary" SUB-IP Area.
IN the announcement of this action the IESG said:
"It is temporary because the IESG believes that this concentrated
sub-IP effort will likely be of short duration, on the order of a year
or two. We feel that much of the work will be done by then, and the
working groups closed. Any working groups that have not finished when
the IESG determines that the area should be closed will be moved into
existing the IETF areas where they seem to have the best fit." and "The
IESG expects to review the development process and charters, however;
if we conclude that this expectation is incorrect, we will need to make
this area more formal. At that point, the nominating committee will be
asked to supply dedicated area directors."
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/sub_area.txt)
Although the SUB-IP working groups have made considerable progress
(with 7 RFCs published, another 12 IDs approved for publication, 9 IDs
under IESG consideration and an additional 11 IDs having been passed to
the ADs for their evaluation) their work is not yet done (with 53
working group IDs currently in progress). It does appear that some of
the working groups could finish the work in their charters over the next
6 months but it could be a lot longer for others.
Because the end is in sight for some of the working groups and since the
IESG had generally assumed that the area would be a temporary one and
the second anniversary of the creation of the SUB-IP area is next spring,
analysis was started in the IESG to figure out which areas would be the
best ones for the SUB-IP working groups to move to so that they could
continue their work.
As part of that analysis a SUB-IP area session was held during the IETF
meeting in Atlanta where this topic was discussed.
There was a spirited discussion during the session on the best path
forward. The opinions ranged from following the distribution of
working groups, to doing so with some specific changes to keeping the
working groups in a separate SUB-IP area. A sense of the room was
taken at the end of the discussion and that sense was very strongly
that the SUB-IP Area should become a "long-term" (the description that
was used during the consensus call) one and that the nomcom be asked
to nominate a person (or persons) to become director(s) of the SUB-IP
area.
To help provide more information as input for the IESG discussion we
would like to continue the discussion started in Atlanta on the mailing
list. It is our intention to keep the discussion on the future of the
SUB-IP area open, but short-lived, because it would be a very good idea
to let the nomcom know ASAP what the future holds as they need to know
what expertise is needed in the ADs for the existing areas and if they
need to search for additional people.
The IESG aim is to be able to let the nomcom know what the future of
the SUB-IP work is by the end of the day of Thursday Dec 12th. That
date was chosen because it is the date of the next IESG teleconference
yet it provides some time for a public discussion.
The options seem to be:
1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP
working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next
summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP (and/or
other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the
remaining WGs.
2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors
3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary,
ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting
ADs to continue the effort that Bert & Scott have been doing. But maybe
give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors,
normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise
live.
Data points for the discussion:
DP1. It does look like a number of the SUB-IP working groups will be
finishing up their main work in the next year and be ready to be closed
until it is time to revise the RFCs based on experience or to advance
them on the standards track. The groups that should be finishing up
include ipo, gsmp and tewg. That would leave mpls, ppvpn and ccamp.
DP2. WGs in SUB-IP or the work pursued in them came from existing
well-established areas, i.e., tewg came from OPS, gsmp, mpls (with ccamp
and ppvpn as its derivatives) came from RTG.
DP3. There's still a need for technical oversight from permanent areas,
so some WGs have a technical advisor--normally the AD from the area
where the working group might otherwise live (e.g. CCAMP, and PPVPN
with a RTG AD as the TA).
DP4. SUB-IP directorate was very useful when the area was just created.
It is currently passive and WGs continue operating just fine.
DP5. The sense of the SUB-IP session in Atlanta was that the SUB-IP
Area was working and there is no compelling reason to break it up.
There is a need to clarify the charters of some of the working groups
so that the different groups understand what the division of tasks are
but it is hard to identify what problem would be solved by breaking up
the area.
DP6. Extensions to specific IETF technologies should be done in the
working groups responsible for those technologies based on requirements
provided by other working groups. For example, extensions to OSPF
should be done by the OSPF working group based on input from other
working groups or individuals rather than being done someplace else.
Discussions about the options:
1/ Move WGs (back) to permanent areas and close the area
For:
Each WG within SUB-IP definitely has a strong feature that maps it to a
given permanent area [1]. The property that logically holds them together
in SUB-IP now is the need for coordination wrt the technologies that are
normally considered below the IP layer. While this was indeed necessary
right after SUB-IP creation, DP4 suggests that the goal has been achieved
and the focus is shifting back to coordination with permanent areas (e.g.,
DP3, as well as the fact that RTG WGs are already dealing with SUB-IP
related extensions). DP1 suggests that there will be about three active
WGs within a year; at least two of them can be argued to belong in RTG
area (where they originally came from, see DP2), so it wouldn't make a
lot of sense to have two separate areas overlapping so considerably.
PPVPN does not map strongly to any area, however it doesn't map strongly
to SUB-IP either (MPLS is just one possible encapsulation method)
Against:
DP5 suggests that the feeling in the room was against closing the area,
though there was also some support for the idea that moving MPLS and
CCAMP to RTG would be a fine idea if the area were to be closed. The
feeling was that the area has been working and that there is no strong
argument that there is a need to change things at this time.
2/ Establish a long-term area
For:
DP5 suggests that the community believes this is a good idea. See also
the "Against" for option 1. In addition the opinion was expressed that
having a specific area with specifically assigned management,
knowledgeable in the field, would be an advantage. In addition, new
SUP-IP work may develop in the future and it would be good to have a
home for it.
Against:
See "For" arguments for option 1 above. Also, there was an assumption
when the area was formed that it would be temporary and the size of the
IESG is near max effective size. It is also expected that if the nomcom
needs to find an AD(s) for SUB-IP, the set of required skills would
be extremely similar to those needed for the RTG area, which again
brings up the question of whether it makes sense to have two areas
with so similar expertise scopes.
3/ Status quo
For:
DP5 suggests that the way the area operates is fine and does not need
fixing at this time. As DP1 predicts, there may not be many active
SUB-IP working groups within a year and it may be best to wait until
a few of the working groups finish their work and close before deciding
on the long term direction for this work. The IESG would decide which
ADs would be asked to manage the area in March.
Against:
A decision has to be made sooner or later, delaying the decision will
not make it any easier to make.
The IESG would like to hear from the community on this topic - please
direct your comments to the ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list.
The IESG will discuss the matter in its next telechat on December 12.
--------------------------------------------------
[1] possible WG to area mappings:
- IPO has the IP-over-foo property, which is usually addressed
in INT,
- GSMP came from RTG
- MPLS (aside from the fact that it came from RTG) deals with a
technology that is arguably another IP forwarding paradigm and relies
heavily on regular routing functionality and/or protocols.
- CCAMP works on a generalized version of MPLS, which could map
it to RTG as well
- TEWG came from O&M
- PPVPN: suggestions have been made of INT, because its tunneling
which is closest to INT, RTG because some of the suggested discovery and
VPN routing mechanisms, and TSV, because its related to PWE3 (in TSV
because of congestion control worries)
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------