I'm trying to work out why anyone (outside the IESG anyway) really
cares about this issue.
Areas are a bureaucratic invention of the IESG - they have their
uses for sure, but their real purpose is for dividing up the WG's
amongst ADs who are able to handle them.
Deciding how many areas should
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
I concur with StJohns. This is a better phrased way of saying the same
thing that I was trying to say.
If SUB-IP Area is to continue past March 2003, then its AD(s) need to be
appointed specifically for that by Nomcom (and ought not be responsible
for more than one area). If the IESG believes
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
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 07:12:44PM -0500, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
a) Sunset the area with a final decision point as 12/31/2003 and a closing
date of 03/01/2004. No further WGs will be chartered in this area.
b) Ask the Nomcom to appoint 1 area director not from the current set of
ADs
For whatever it is
worth, I support Option 3 ("Status quo").
I think that the
"hard" decision (currently postponed) will bebecome simpler
as we shall see
conclusion of some of the WGs curently in the Sub-IP area and
probably creation of
some new ones.
Also why
in hurry today might be harmful in the future.
for instance, i've seen many ways to move wg's i have also
my opinion on this but it is based on a perception of the
current situation that may be too close from the reality
and the day-to-day efforts of sub-ip area working groups
(so that we see only
I might as well chime in on the actual question that was asked.
I guess I disagree with the majority of folks working in the sub-IP area. I
never thought it made any sense to move all those working groups out of
their original areas into a sub-IP area, and I never understood
Lars An example is PPVPN, which is chartered to work on specification of
Lars requirements, with new protocol work being explicitly out-of-scope.
Lars However, some current PPVPN IDs (and several more targetted at it)
Lars read more like solution documents
From the PPVPN charter:
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
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
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 07:12:44PM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote:
a) Sunset the area with a final decision point as 12/31/2003 and a closing
date of 03/01/2004. No further WGs will be chartered in this area.
b) Ask the Nomcom to appoint 1 area director not from the current set of
ADs for a
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
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:03 PM
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 07:12:44PM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote:
a) Sunset the area with a final decision
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, while making sure that such move would have no impact
on the work that is going on in these WGs ?
3. Are we discussing whether it would
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
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Alex
This is a forwarded message
From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Cc:
Date: Wednesday, December 04, 2002, 8:08:49 AM
Subject: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
===8==Original message text===
IETF SUB-IP area
The IESG announced
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
suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers to manage the area next March)
I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do
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
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joe
Touch
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 10:34 AM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
Scott Bradner wrote:
for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we should
do
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
: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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
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
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
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 4:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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
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
suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers to manage the area next March)
I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do otherwise in the
next week
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
in the interest
of that remaining larger community :-)
-Vach
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
- The statement that some of the WGs in the SubIP area are about to
finish up may be deceptive. Some of the WGs are accepting new
proposals on wide-ranging topics.
This is an important point. An example is PPVPN, which is chartered to
work on specification of
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
At 09:55 PM 12/4/2002 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The options seem to be:
1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP
working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next
summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP
Danny McPherson wrote:
They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to carry
ethernet over another protocol and keep current ethernet correctness.
Sure, but what about IP network correctness (e.g., security or congestion
control)?
Security isn't an IP issue; it's an IPsec
In thinking about the issues of temporary areas generally and
this one in particular, I've got pair of concerns that have not
been mentioned so far:
(i) There is always the possibility that Nomcom selections and
decisions will change the balance of consensus of the IESG on
any particular
2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors
I spoke on this at the Sub-IP area meeting. I beleive that the Area
provides focus for a class
All the stuff in the sub-ip area is a combination of
applications running over IP and lower-layer services
over which IP (and presumably anything else -- after
all what do the MP stand for in MPLS?) runs.
The logic which directs that these things be standardized
in the IETF could be used
Eric Rosen wrote:
Joe Many of these discussions (layer 2 VPNs, in particular) would be better
Joe served by occuring within the context of their original host
Joe organization (i.e., IEEE for ethernet over IP), since it was those
Joe organizations that defined those LANs, and
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 08:15:16AM -0800, Joe Touch allegedly wrote:
Eric Rosen wrote:
IEEE is certainly not the right place to determine how to carry
ethernet data and control frames over IP networks.
They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to
carry ethernet over
Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 08:15:16AM -0800, Joe Touch allegedly wrote:
Eric Rosen wrote:
IEEE is certainly not the right place to determine how to carry
ethernet data and control frames over IP networks.
They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to
Scott W Brim wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 08:15:16AM -0800, Joe Touch allegedly wrote:
Eric Rosen wrote:
IEEE is certainly not the right place to determine how to carry
ethernet data and control frames over IP networks.
They defined ethernet. It is they who would best determine how to
I can't speak about the quality or relevance of work that's been done in the
sub-ip area; I simply haven't followed it closely enough.
However it's clear to me that the Internet has an increasing need for
commonality in services that are (depending on how you think about them)
either between IP
I've only heard secondhand about the activities in the sub-ip area and
so I can't offer direct feedback. However, in
http://www.ietf.org//mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18130.html, John
Klensin makes the following point:
(4) There is a class of WG for which the bounded outcome model
Aaron I can easily imagine this is so, although, as I say above, I have no
Aaron facts to back this up.
Wouldn't it be nice if people based their feedback on facts, rather than on
what they imagine! Well, at least you're honest about it ;-)
Aaron If sub-ip represents technologies that
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
IETF SUB-IP area
...
Although the SUB-IP working groups have made considerable progress
(with 7 RFCs published, another 12 IDs approved for publication, 9 IDs
under IESG consideration and an additional 11 IDs having been passed to
the ADs for their evaluation
Joe Touch wrote:
[..]
Consider it ended. Now argue in favor of creation.
I concur, and would also like to see arguments about the Sub-IP area
cast in terms of justifying its re-creation.
cheers,
gja
--
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
3. The I in IETF means that the IETF shouldn't be working
sub-IP anyway. Many of these discussions (layer 2 VPNs, in
particular) would be better served by occuring within the context
of their original host organization (i.e., IEEE for ethernet over
IP),
Perhaps I
Danny McPherson wrote:
3. The I in IETF means that the IETF shouldn't be working
sub-IP anyway. Many of these discussions (layer 2 VPNs, in
particular) would be better served by occuring within the context
of their original host organization (i.e., IEEE for ethernet over
If the SUB-IP Area is to continue after the Spring 2003 IETF,
then it should have its own Area Directors appointed by the Nomcom.
I'll note that the IESG is free to re-organise itself at any time
and that the IESG has done so on occasion. This means that even
if SUB-IP ADs were appointed
reason to break it up, I contend that there was no compelling
reason to create it in the first place. As DP3 notes, there is a
continuing need for close coordination with the original areas. At the
same time, it is not clear there has ever been a need for close
coordination between the WGs in the sub-IP
: onsdag, desember 04, 2002 11:08:49 -0500
From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
IETF SUB-IP area
The IESG announced in November of 2000 that a new SUB-IP temporary
pseudo-area would be formed as a part of an effort to develop a
systematic
[clipped...]
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
I'd prefer Option 3 (as well).
-danny
[clipped...]
[clipped more...]
3/ Status quo
[...]
Option 2 would be fine. Option 3 would be ok too.
Yakov.
Fred Baker wrote:
There has been some concern over the scope of the IETF sub-IP effort. This
is an attempt to help clarify the view of the IESG on a number of issues.
Suggestion:
I believe that this (type of) message should be copied to the
ietf-announce list.
regards,
--
Rahmat M.
t effort. The sub-IP directorate,
consisting of the Area Directors for the Operations and Management,
Internet, Routing and Transport Areas, the chairs of the sub-IP working
groups and other individuals that the directorate feel would be helpful,
will be maintained for the duration of the sub-IP area. Th
60 matches
Mail list logo
