> 1. Are we discussing whether to shut down asap the WGs that are > presently in the sub-IP area ?
maybe some folk are. in fact, the ietf is now big enough that surely someone is. but i don't think it is one of the alternatives which harald, bert, scott, the iesg, ... put forward > 2. Are we discussing whether to move these WGs from one area to > another, while making sure that such move would have no impact > on the work that is going on in these WGs ? that was one of the alternatives. though possibly some folk thought it might have a positive impact on the work going on in the wgs. > 3. Are we discussing whether it would be possible to shut down the > WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area without stating this > explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs > to some other areas ? indeed, you may be discussing that. seems you are. but i don't think harald, bert, scott, the iesg ... were doing so. randy
