Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
IETF SUB-IP area
...
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.
It would be useful to have some statistics on these RFCs. Have any been
other than Informational?
Further, generation of IDs isn't a definition of success; some WGs (at
least one in particular in the list above) are blackholes into which
every free-radical ID seems to find purchase, regardless of utility,
appropriateness, etc. - and often despite explicit AD feedback to the
contrary.
As part of that analysis a SUB-IP area session was held during the IETF
meeting in Atlanta where this topic was discussed.
IMO:
1. most of the groups have to work primarily with
another area anyway.
2. PPVPN is the exception, because it's creating an
entirely new Internet. As such, it belongs under Internet,
with liasons to transport, routing, etc.
3. The I in IETF means that the IETF shouldn't be working
sub-IP anyway. Many of these discussions (layer 2 VPNs, in
particular) would be better served by occuring within the context
of their original host organization (i.e., IEEE for ethernet over
IP), since it was those organizations that defined those LANs,
and they who would best comment on the correctness (or lack)
of proposed solutions.
Solutions in those areas should be brought back to us only
to the extent and when it is clear what group is affected,
e.g., transport, routing, etc.
SUB-IP is currently a place for WGs to hide from the areas they should
be working more closely with; the groups have little if anything in
common or overlap.
The case needs to be made STRONGLY in favor; the default here cannot be
the status quo for its own sake.
For those reasons I am in favor of #1:
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.
Some observations regarding some of the points:
...
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.
This was polling the choir. Most attendees are vested heavily in one of
the WGs, and the consensus of the WGs is to stay put. IMO, absent a VERY
strong, concrete justification to the contrary, this experiment should
be declared over.
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.
It is critical to ask the converse; what problem is solved by creating a
new area?
The default is, as per the finite-timescale creation of SUB-IP, that
doing 'nothing' means there is no SUB-IP area anymore. Now, in light of
that, identify the problem solved by creating an area at this time.
So far, all I've seen is "yeah, but why change what is currently
working?" I'm all for that. What worked was a finite-lifetime area, and
the default is to cease on schedule.
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.
...
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.
Again, the status quo is to cease SUB-IP on schedule. Creating a
temporary area does NOT create eminent domain for a permanent area. If
it does, we'll never get another temporary area off the ground again,
since it'll be considered potentially permanent at the time of the
experiment.
Consider it ended. Now argue in favor of creation.
Joe