ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

2002-12-10 08:08:26
Hi,

My personal assessment is in favor of

  "1/ Move WGs (back) to permanent areas and close the area"

...primarily because I think that both the general IETF work (as
represented by the WGs in the permanent Areas) *and* the work of
the transplanted SUB-IP WGs would benefit...and those gains would
help us collectively satisfy the marketplace need for us to work
in reasonable concert with the OIF, ITU-T, and other relevant
industry bodies on the subject set of technologies.  I think that
making this transition as quickly as possible will yield maximum
benefits...putting if off is just a waste of time, IMHO.  I would
consider this a successful conclusion to the SUB-IP Area temporary
assignment.  As this would lessen the workload on the ADs involved
and not negatively impact the WGs concerned, it seems like a win-win
to me.

I also agree with the candidate rationale offered in the solicitation
message, with the exception that if the GSMP WG continues then I
feel that it would better fit in the OPS area (with CCAMP and MPLS
in RTG and PPVPN in TSV):

  "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)."

Cheers,

BobN