FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat different paths,
but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm personally skeptical at
this moment about SUB-IP becoming a permanent area (area overlaps,
mission statement, expected number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in
Atlanta a strong message from the SUB-IP community against closing the
area at this time. IMO our best shot now is to continue as is, and
revisit the question in a year or when the situation with "about-to-
conclude" WGs clarifies.
Alex
Monday, December 09, 2002, 8:27:43 AM, 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
suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers 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.
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.
And any move at this time to move the WGs would be seen as a slap in
the face of the quite strong (even if in a limited venue) opinion
expressed in Atlanta.
Right after Atlanta I was convinced that we should follow the consensus and
ask the nomcom to find a AD but upon refection I'm not sure that is the
right thing either - partially because as Randy has pointed out, we do
not have a clear mission statement for such an area but mostly because
enough of the WGs are close enough to finishing up that we whould have a
quite small area in 6 months to a year and an area with only 2 or 3
working groups seems a bit of a waste. But if there is a long-term
future for sub-IP work in the IETF then aditional working groups may
be in the offering. We need the time to reflect on what that future
should be.
So I think we should continue as-is until:
1/ the WGs which will finish "soon" finish
2/ we (the IESG, IAB & ietf community) figure out what role
sub-ip should play in the IETF in the long term
but it would be good to hear from more of you both to the IETF list and
to the IESG directly
Scott