What Randy says!
Thanks,
Bert
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: woensdag 11 december 2002 2:08
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: Paul Hoffman / VPNC; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
1. Are we
Keith In my experience, IESG has tremendous breadth - considerably
Keith exceeding that of any single WG.
You must be joking.
No, I'm dead serious. Almost every IESG member I've worked with is seriously
competent over a wide range of subject matter. Our selection process isn't
i agree w/ this, currently my preference goes to 3/ and
as suggested we should use this time to have a longer term
thought about the future of this area, may be we should use
this time (between now and this period to be defined) in
order to come out with a consistent solution by then, do
things in
At 1:03 PM -0800 12/10/02, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
I think it would be worthwhile to ask the following three questions:
1. Are we discussing whether to shut down asap the WGs that are
presently in the sub-IP area ?
2. Are we discussing whether to move these WGs from one area to
another,
Eric Rosen wrote:
Keith In my experience, IESG has tremendous breadth - considerably
Keith exceeding that of any single WG.
You must be joking. Or perhaps you just mean that you tend to agree with
the IESG's program of trying to preserve the academic, ivory tower vision of
the
Yakov Rekhter wrote:
Paul,
Er, toning down the rhetoric a bit, it is worthwhile to ask two questions:
- Does keeping the WGs in one area help significantly?
- Does keeping the WGs in the IETF help significantly?
I think it would be worthwhile to ask the following three questions:
I do too.
It would seem that the primary objection
to #3 (keep sub-IP for a while until some of
the WGs finish) is that it may never actually
be dissolved. Other than that concern, it
would seem that #3 is the most popular option.
I propose option #3.2 - pick a definite date
some months from now to
Scott Bradner wrote:
for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we should
do in the question of the sub-ip area
I think we should go with the status quo (with the IESG selecting two
volunteers to manage the area next March)
I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the CALSCH WG
decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.
You might not think that's a fair analogy,
Vach Kompella wrote:
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the CALSCH WG
decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.
We don't let WGs
Here's my personal opinion.
I think we have two suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers :-)
I think the area's WGs need ADs who have been close enough to keep the
continuity of relations with other standards bodies, the past work, etc.
Regarding whether there is a need for an area long-term, it would depend on
At 11:15 AM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
Let's also let the VRRP WG decide on the fate of SIP WG documents, the
CALSCH WG decide on the fate of OSPF WG docs... Let's particularly ignore
the fact that the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in
getting the best possible
You normally don't get to last call without having gotten the WG's opinion on
whether it should even go to the IESG. I think the IESG expects that due
diligence from the WG. It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had
an majority that wished the area to continue, at least for the
At 01:38 PM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote:
It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had an majority that
wished the area to continue, at least for the time being. I don't want
that to be ignored, or dismissed as just the choir's opinion.
I don't believe it is being ignored.
Let's particularly ignore the fact that
the folks closest to the issues have the most interest in getting the best
possible outcome.
increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of the best possible
outcome is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically
opposed to, the
THE PRESENT SET OF AREA DIRECTORS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A LONG STANDING TREND.
(Is that better, Fred?)
I support option 3). I also suspect that this is not a
case of ignoring the consensus of those attending the
meeting. Some people may feel that the best way for the
FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat different paths,
but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm personally skeptical at
this moment about SUB-IP becoming a permanent area (area overlaps,
mission statement, expected number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in
Atlanta a strong
My question is, what harm will be done to the WG's ability to deliver
and close by moving them? If there were are real need for cross group
coordination within the sub-IP area, that would be a little clearer.
Instead we have a situation where these groups need to coordinate with a
real area to
And is that because members of the larger community were not allowed to
participate in those WGs whose decisions adversely impacted their interests?
Because, by your assertion, if they had participated, they would have been part
of making the WG decision, which would therefore not have been in the
increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of the best possible
outcome is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically
opposed to, the interests of the larger community.
I have two problems with this statement. First, while I am all for
being critical of our processes for
The workings of special interest groups can and often do have a
significant effect on the general population, but nobody can afford the
time and energy it takes to keep track of every special interest group
that might affect him.
Often it seems as though the WGs
increasingly often I find WGs whose definition of the best possible
outcome is inconsistent with, and in some cases almost diametrically
opposed to, the interests of the larger community.
I have two problems with this statement. First, while I am all for
being critical of our processes
The workings of special interest groups can and often do have a
significant effect on the general population, but nobody can afford the
time and energy it takes to keep track of every special interest group
that might affect him.
Often it seems as though the WGs
Eric Rosen wrote:
[..]
Often it seems as though the WGs reflect the broad consensus of the
community, and the IESG is the special interest group.
Given that the IETF *is* a special interest group, I take this as a feature
rather than a bug.
cheers,
gja
At 4:50 PM -0800 12/9/02, Tony Hain wrote:
If there were are real need for cross group
coordination within the sub-IP area, that would be a little clearer.
A presentation at the SubIP Area meeting in Atlanta drove home the
point that the amount of coordination in the area was not as high as
25 matches
Mail list logo
