Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input

I vote for DP1 - Moving the WGs back to one of the
existing permanent areas. Otherwise, the problem of
coordination with related permanent areas is likely
to get worse.

regards,
suresh

--- Alex Zinin <zinin(_at_)PSG(_dot_)COM> wrote:
> FYI below. (Sorry for cross-posting.)
> Please post follow-ups to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
> --
> Alex
>
> This is a forwarded message
> From: The IESG <iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> To:
> Cc:
> Date: Wednesday, December 04, 2002, 8:08:49 AM
> Subject: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
>
> ===8<==============Original message text===============
>
>
> 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)
>
>
> ===8<===========End of original message text===========

=====