ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2002-12-09 14:53:26
You normally don't get to last call without having gotten the WG's opinion on
whether it should even go to the IESG.  I think the IESG expects that due
diligence from the WG.  It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had
an majority that wished the area to continue, at least for the time being.  I
don't want that to be ignored, or dismissed as "just the choir's opinion".  The
general solicitation of input on the ietf mailing list (and, as I suggested in
my email, we should probably have included other RTG and TSV working groups -
not just those involved in SUB-IP related work), is like the last call.

I've aleady posted my personal opinion on where I think we should go with
sub-ip.  To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3 (status
quo).

I am of the opinion that if the target for 3 WGs (ipo, tewg, gsmp) is to close
soon, then keeping the area (with the same ADs) open temporarily long enough for
the continuity needed to bring stuff to closure is also good management-101.
I'm not very bullish on ppvpn closing on schedule.

I don't think ccamp and mpls will close that soon.  So, I would expect that
these two would go into RTG and ppvpn (because of its affinity to pwe3) would go
into TSV, but perhaps it may end up in RTG.

-Vach

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:31 PM
To: vkompella(_at_)timetranetworks(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area


At 11:15 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
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.

AFAIK, we're not discussing document status; we're discussing working
groups and the area that contains them. The documents will be published.
And by the way, what do you think a "last call" is? We *do* in fact ask
folks to comment on drafts being published outside their immediate area of
concern.

As presented, we are discussing six working groups (ccamp, gsmp, ipo, mpls,
ppvpn, and tewg), down from an original nine if memory serves, and of which
four are likely to complete their work and dissolve during the coming year
anyway. So we're really talking about two working groups: ccamp and mpls.
The comparison is to Transport (27 working groups, up from a year ago) or
Security (17 working groups), and User Services (now closed, with both of
its working groups).

If there were new working groups spawning here, one might be able to argue
that there is work justifying asking one or two people to dedicate their
time as area directors to managing the working groups. It seems to me that
moving the two continuing-to-be-active working groups to an active home
when the others close is just good-management-101. If we're going to keep
the area open, there needs to be a solid justification for doing so, and
it's not there.





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>