ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area

2002-12-09 12:36:58
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the CALSCH WG
decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs...  Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.

You might not think that's a fair analogy, but it's really the constituents who
are most impacted by the decision, not the IETF as a whole.  I'm not sure why
the other IETF WGs or areas would as a whole care about SUBIP, except on
principle.  And it's not like they don't have a voice (this mailing list and
particularly the plenaries).

I think the request for comments might be targeted at a slightly larger audience
(other WGs in the Routing Area, Transport Area, Operations Area, perhaps) whose,
since not everyone subscribes to the spam abatement, er, ietf mailing list.

-Vach

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Joe
Touch
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 10:34 AM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area


Scott Bradner wrote:
for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we should
do in the question of the sub-ip area

I think we should go with the status quo (with the IESG selecting two
volunteers to manage the area next March)

I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do otherwise in the
next week.

Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas
was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but
more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting
to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last
temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years)  But the feedback we got in
Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change.

I'll add that most of the attendees at this meeting in Atlanta were from
the WGs themselves. It is unsurprising that the overwhelming position of
that group is to maintain the status quo. Moving them is definitely seen
as unwelcome change from within the groups themselves.

It would be useful to hear from the community at large regarding this
issue, rather than letting the group decide (essentially) for itself.

FWIW, I have yet to see a substantive justification for the _creation_
of a new area yet. I, and others, have pointed out that the 'status quo'
here is to let the area dissolve on schedule.

Joe