----- Original Message -----
From: "Alia Atlas" <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "Lou Berger" <lberger(_at_)labn(_dot_)net>
Cc: "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>; "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "manning bill" <bmanning(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:11 AM
On Aug 12, 2014 11:57 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger(_at_)labn(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 08/12/2014 10:05 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
Indeed, I would say that of the problems I'm aware of, tourists
barely
register.
I agree, but one of the objectives stated by the routing ADs for
their
planned routing area reorg is reducing the number of tourists in a
WG.
BTW this is their issue, not mine so they will have to explain.
Nope - that's not what we said. I'm interested in better
signal-to-noise
ratio for participants in a WG. Never have I discussed tourists
though
others have helpfully put up strawmen claiming that we had.
Alia
What I saw you say was
"One driver for this reorganization is to get to "right-size" working
groups
that are large
enough to have critical mass and not so large as to have poor
signal-to-noise for participants or suffer from disengagement."
Trouble is, while there are some WG in the IETF that suffer from this,
arguably the list we are on now, I would not place any of the Routing WG
in that category. Historically, MPLS would have been in the days of
MPLS-TP but those days are long gone so unless and until another SDO
wants to crank up the volume on a Routing WG, I fail to see it as
justification for a reorganisation.
And yes, I think that this is an IETF matter, not just one for a Routing
list.
Tom Petch
Alia
Lou