I'd like to focus for a moment on another part of Jari's original message.
On 12/25/14 1:16 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Dear Community:
In October, we let you know that we would be coming up with some proposals
<trim/>
III. MERGING OF UPPER LAYER PROTOCOL AREAS
<trim/>
DISPATCH, TSVWG, and APPSAWG
would continue to function much as they currently do.
I see this as problematic.
RAI is currently operating following RFC 5727, where dispatch is
defined. It is a consensus document describing how the area decided to
behave. It does not seem right to say _parts_ of the new combined area
will follow that consensus. How are you planning to avoid "well, that's
the APPs part of <newareaname> and we do things like this over there"?
If you're not planning to avoid that, then it's not really clear what
problem the organization is really going to solve - the resulting ADs
will have to behave the same regardless of their label.
The arguments in the past about whether a group belonged in transport or
RAI, while occasionally silly, were _usually_ helpful in clarifying the
problem that the proposed group was starting to circle around. Some of
the comments from active TSV members have touched on aspects of this
already. As proposed, we will lose that tension, and I think we'll end
up with muddier charters as a result. (There are other ways to preserve
that tension, of course, but we would need to explicitly put them in place).
If the thought of developing something like dispatch-related parts of
RFC 5727 to describe how a new combined area (whatever its ingredients)
plans to operate seems onerous, or too heavyweight, I'd take it as a
warning that we're headed for something unpleasant, or that has no real
effect on organization, improving the efficiency of making standards,
making recruiting ADs easier, or reducing AD load.
Rather than that, I hope we could fairly quickly come up with a good
description of how such a combined area would behave, and I hope that's
not "just like the pieces do now".
RjS