At 10:15 AM +0200 6/18/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
- some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
- we're too stupid to get it right, so we shouldn't do it
- the IETF is too large, so we shouldn't be adding more work
This might be a combination of the latter three, but I think it is
clearer for this WG:
- the IETF's track record for this work so far is quite poor
We have not shown any ability to create standards in this area with
due speed or predictability. We have not shown the good judgement
needed to limit the scope of the work we do. (Look at the number of
L2VPN-based Working Group drafts in PWE3 and PPVPN, much less the
large number of non-WG documents being actively discussed.
The IETF understands the need for layer 2 technologies for OAM much
better than we understand the Internet customer's need (or even
concern) for layer 2 transport of their IP packets. This is because
we have a tighter relationship with operators than we do with
Internet users, and because Internet users generally could care less
about how their ISPs move their traffic as long as they meet the
service level agreements. The ISPs would love to have better
cross-vendor interop for the L2VPN technologies, but so far the
vendors haven't had time to think about that because they have been
overloaded with the literally dozens of flavors that are being
discussed in the IETF.
We will never know if there is another organization who could do a
better job than this because no other organization will take on the
work while the 800-pound gorilla of standards bodies is flailing
around in the area. There are certainly other organizations that can
take it on, such as the MPLS and Frame Relay Alliance. They might do
just as bad of a job as we have so far, but they could also do much
better because they are much more focused.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium