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
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 to change
something
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 the
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:
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
:[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 [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
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 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 to
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'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
will,
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
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 by
I was in the room in Atlanta, and the consensus sounded more like 'leave
us alone' than 'there is a clear need for a focused area'. IMHO, the
area should be closed as it is not clear it has provided any real value
(despite the abstract claim of DP4). While DP5 suggests there is no
compelling
: 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.
30 matches
Mail list logo
