[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input

2002-12-10 15:04:07
I think Option 3 is the best option, although option 2 would also be fine.


 Discussions about the options:

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


 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
 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)


 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


 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.


 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


 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.


   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.