I think Option 3 is the best option, although option 2 would also be fine. -Jonathan
> Discussions about the options: > > 1/ Move WGs (back) to permanent areas and close the area > > For: > > 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). 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) > > Against: > > 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 > > For: > > 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. > > Against: > > 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 > > For: > > 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. > > Against: > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
