Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 the Area will really close within one year, the IESG should tell Nomcom to make those appointments for one year rather than two. This is the only approach fully consistent with documented IETF open processes. To do otherwise is to continue with a less-transparent-than-needed approach to selecting the ADs for that Area. Ran On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 19:12 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns wrote: After reading through the discussions and thinking about the IETF needs as a whole, I want to propose a 4th alternative (which is a merge of the opt 2 and 3): 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 term of 1 year. Term would run March 02 to March 03. I think this approach would accomplish two things: 1) The area would be legitimized for the period of operation and that would bring it under normal IETF procedures. 2) We (the IETF) would have an opportunity to apprentice/train a new AD in a lower stress/load environment than the usual area. In Dec 03, if there is sufficient reason to continue the area, the NOMCOM can act to continue the appointment or to appoint another or other ADs as well as more fully define the charter. If not, the area can close in March. Mike ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 a term of 1 year. Term would run March 02 to March 03. .. area. In Dec 03, if there is sufficient reason to continue the area, the NOMCOM can act to continue the appointment or to appoint another or other ADs as well as more fully define the charter. If not, the area can close This is why I think a lot of this is moot. What we actually do is going to depend on the state of things at the instant the decision needs to be made. If there is reason to keep the area going then we will. If not we won't. Right now there is no consensus. The WGs will take the same amount of effort regardless of what area they are in. Consider (1) the tendency of committees (that's us) to focus on the little problems because the big problems are awkward, at least in committees, and (2) the observation that the decisions that matter the least take the most time. Don't we have more important things to do?
RE: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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 that is working just fine?
With best regards,
Sasha Vainshtein
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: +972-3-7659993
(office)
+972-8-9254948 (res.)
+972-58-674833 (cell.)
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 sub-IP area hourglass architecture that was foisted on us by the IESG. So I've never thought that it makes much sense to have a separate sub-IP area, and I don't think it makes sense to keep it as a separate area in the future. The advantage of maintaining the status quo is that everyone has gotten used to the current ADs, and most people figure that any change will make things worse. When new ADs get involved, they tend to reinterpret the charters and disrupt the work. But if one ignores the possibility of short-term personality issues, I think it would be better to choose established areas for the MPLS, CCAMP, and PPVPN WGs.
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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: This working group is responsible for defining and specifying a limited number of sets of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned virtual private networks (PPVPNs). It is somewhat difficult to define and specify a solution without writing something that reads like a solution document. Lars for various existing vendor schemes, From the PPVPN charter: The working group is expected to consider at least three specific approaches Various existing vendor schemes are then explicitly mentioned. Lars new protocol work being explicitly out-of-scope [but PPVPN documents Lars are] specifying packet headers and MIBs In some cases the PPVPN docs do have protocol work in them which needs to be moved to another working group. But I don't think this is a case of the group going beyond its charter, it's just a matter of the individual contributors getting the time to divide up the documents properly. In other cases, the PPVPN docs just specify how existing protocols are to be used to achieve various functions. I don't think defining a MIB counts as new protocol work.
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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.
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 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 term of 1 year. Term would run March 02 to March 03. I cannot speak for the nomcom, but I will note that this would be asking nomcom to take on the responsibility of appointing another area director, *after* the call-for-candidates window has closed (the deadline for suggesting a candidate for an IAB and IESG slot was the last day of the Atlanta IETF meeting). Hence, if a proposal involves additional work for the nomcom at this late date, I would strongly urge that the Phil, as this year's nomcom chair, be asked for his advice and consent before such a plan is adopted. - Ted
RE: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
I've been assuming that we would just do another cycle with a new call for nominations if we're asked to fill another slot. Presumably the IESG would let us know when the nomcom would need to have selected the candidate for the opening. -Original Message- From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[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 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 term of 1 year. Term would run March 02 to March 03. I cannot speak for the nomcom, but I will note that this would be asking nomcom to take on the responsibility of appointing another area director, *after* the call-for-candidates window has closed (the deadline for suggesting a candidate for an IAB and IESG slot was the last day of the Atlanta IETF meeting). Hence, if a proposal involves additional work for the nomcom at this late date, I would strongly urge that the Phil, as this year's nomcom chair, be asked for his advice and consent before such a plan is adopted. - Ted
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
I vote for DP1 - Moving the WGs back to one of the existing permanent areas. Otherwise, the problem of coordination with related permanent areas is likely to get worse. regards, suresh --- Alex Zinin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI below. (Sorry for cross-posting.) Please post follow-ups 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 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 approach to dealing with what we used to describe as sub-IP technologies. At the time the IESG said: Over the years the boundary between 'wires' and IP protocols has become harder to define and the interaction has become more intertwined. For example, what appear as 'wires' or 'circuits' in a virtual network may in fact be routed datagrams in an underlying IP network. The topology of dynamic underlying networks such as ATM and soon switched optical networks can interact with IP-level traffic engineering and routing. Additionally, with IETF technologies such as MPLS we are defining a whole new class of 'wires'. (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/new-area.txt) After the December 2000 IETF meeting and taking into account the discussion at that meeting the IESG formed a temporary SUB-IP Area. IN the announcement of this action the IESG said: It is temporary because the IESG believes that this concentrated sub-IP effort will likely be of short duration, on the order of a year or two. We feel that much of the work will be done by then, and the working groups closed. Any working groups that have not finished when the IESG determines that the area should be closed will be moved into existing the IETF areas where they seem to have the best fit. and The IESG expects to review the development process and charters, however; if we conclude that this expectation is incorrect, we will need to make this area more formal. At that point, the nominating committee will be asked to supply dedicated area directors. (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/sub_area.txt) 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) their work is not yet done (with 53 working group IDs currently in progress). It does appear that some of the working groups could finish the work in their charters over the next 6 months but it could be a lot longer for others. Because the end is in sight for some of the working groups and since the IESG had generally assumed that the area would be a temporary one and the second anniversary of the creation of the SUB-IP area is next spring, analysis was started in the IESG to figure out which areas would be the best ones for the SUB-IP working groups to move to so that they could continue their work. As part of that analysis a SUB-IP area session was held during the IETF meeting in Atlanta where this topic was discussed. There was a spirited discussion during the session on the best path forward. The opinions ranged from following the distribution of working groups, to doing so with some specific changes to keeping the working groups in a separate SUB-IP area. A sense of the room was taken at the end of the discussion and that sense was very strongly that the SUB-IP Area should become a long-term (the description that was used during the consensus call) one and that the nomcom be asked to nominate a person (or persons) to become director(s) of the SUB-IP area. To help provide more information as input for the IESG discussion we would like to continue the discussion started in Atlanta on the mailing list. It is our intention to keep the discussion on the future of the SUB-IP area open, but short-lived, because it would be a very good idea to let the nomcom know ASAP what the future holds as they need to know what expertise is needed in the ADs for the existing areas and if they need to search for additional people. The IESG aim is to be able to let the nomcom know what the future of the SUB-IP work is by the end of the day of Thursday Dec 12th. That date was chosen because it is the date of the next IESG teleconference yet it provides some time for a public discussion. 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 (and/or other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the remaining WGs
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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 requirements, with new protocol work being explicitly out-of-scope. However, some current PPVPN IDs (and several more targetted at it) read more like solution documents for various existing vendor schemes, specifying packet headers and MIBs. Another indication is that those IDs aim at standards track, whereas requirements documents would more naturally fall under Informational or maybe BCP. So PPVPN at least seems quite happy to go out-of-scope, and is thus unlikely to stick to their given timeframe. Lars PS: I support 1/ - close SUB-IP and migrate the WGs. -- Lars Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] USC Information Sciences Institute smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 (and/or other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the remaining WGs. 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 3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary, ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting ADs to continue the effort that Bert Scott have been doing. But maybe give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors, normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise live. After reading through the discussions and thinking about the IETF needs as a whole, I want to propose a 4th alternative (which is a merge of the opt 2 and 3): 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 term of 1 year. Term would run March 02 to March 03. I think this approach would accomplish two things: 1) The area would be legitimized for the period of operation and that would bring it under normal IETF procedures. 2) We (the IETF) would have an opportunity to apprentice/train a new AD in a lower stress/load environment than the usual area. In Dec 03, if there is sufficient reason to continue the area, the NOMCOM can act to continue the appointment or to appoint another or other ADs as well as more fully define the charter. If not, the area can close in March. Mike
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 issue. If they use IPsec, then they need to show how current solutions won't work. Ditto for ICMP. etc. IP doesn't have congestion control. Neither does Ethernet. Ethernet over IP is unlikely to have meaningful congestion control as a result. Certainly IETF-ers would be useful participants, but keep in mind that transport protocol discussions usually focus at the transport layer (in this case, ethernet) with experts thereof, not at the IP layer. I'm confused... Transport Layer (as in Layer 4) or transport layer[?] (as in Layer 2)? Regardless, being an Internet user, I'd prefer they be defined in the IETF. Running layer 2 over layer 3 is liable to generate this sort of confusion. As far as IP is concerned, ethernet over IP means ethernet is a 'transport' protocol (layer 4). Not everything spec'd in IP is defined in the IEFT. Certainly they need a protocol number. An assumption is that the IP side cannot reasonably change to support this new use (or at least that it hasn't been shown it won't work), there's nothing left for the IETF to care about, IMO. That may be the case, i.e., case for a joint group, but this is clearly outside sole-IETF scope per se. You've obviously observed IEEE member participation in these IETF WGs, hence your comments regarding semantics discussions... And I don't recall anyone saying discard input from individual members or officially from the original host organization, quite the contrary, actually. I think the IESG ( IAB) saw value in performing this work in the IETF largely because transporting these protocols (e.g., Layer 2 protocols) over IP networks was going to happen, regardless, and you could have it only one of two ways: o Ethernet (e.g.) PRECISELY specified over IP or o Ethernet specified over IP in an IP-friendly manner (I'm sure the original host organization would make attempts, but the expertise for doing things in an IP-friendly manner clearly resides within the IETF). Perhaps you can tell us what IP friendly means. Then perhaps there would be a reason for this discussion in the IETF. Absent that, it's an ethernet discussion - ethernet over Frame Relay, ethernet over copper, ethernet over ATM and now ethernet over IP. Those discussions happened elsewhere, excepting the last. There is clear reason to have that set of discussions in the same place, with the same gathered expertise. IETF members might be interested, and participate, but there's no justification yet shown for IETF hosting this group. Joe
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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 issue, especially an organizational one. If there are plausible odds that a new IESG would reach a significantly different decision than the old one, the decision should, if possible, probably be left to the new group, rather than sticking them with sorting out the implications of a decision with which they might not agree. I don't know what to suggest about this at this stage, but I think it would be good for the community to give general guidance to the IESG that, when possible, the period between the last IETF meeting of one year and the first one of the next is not the ideal time to be making organizational decisions. (ii) If a temporary area extends for more than a year, and one or more of the associated ADs comes up for renomination, the Nomcom has a dilemma: -- they can evaluate possible candidates knowing that some AD will need to do double duty (in two areas), both with regard to competencies and with regard to available time. -- they can ignore the temporary area entirely, assuming that their responsibility is only to deal with the permanent areas and that the IESG will just have to sort out any consequences, reorganizing itself if necessary. Of the two, the second is probably preferable, but neither is really ideal. I suspect it argues against long-lived temporary areas. john
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 of problem that is not going to go away. In fact, as the versions of IP are adapted to more underlying structures, including the optical sub-strucutre today and wireless sub-structures tomorrow, there will alwasy be a class of problem that is best categorized as the sub-ip problem. In fact throughout the history of the IETF there have been such issues, e.g. PPP, it is just that they were easily hosted in other areas due to their relative simplicity. As this class of issue grows, however, I think it would benefit from the focus only obtainable its own area. It may even be reasonable to go through the working groups in some other areas and see if some don't fit better into a generic sub-IP area. One further point: Should the WGs be parcelled out to various groups, GSMP should be considered as a candidate for the OM area. Though GSMP was originally in the Routing area this was becasue the MPLS area was there. As it is a management protocol for sub-ip entities I think the best alternate placement for it is the management area. I obviously support it remaining in the permanent Sub-IP area should that be an option. a. -- Avri Doria http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 direct that _any_ lower-layer technology be standardized in the IETF. There is also logic that says that these technologies are important to the Internet and, in order to ensure that they do the right thing, they should be standardized in the IETF. This logic is also in error. First, these efforts have evolved into some of the worst and most hideous examples of bloatware that I've ever seen. Second, there are many technologies that are important to the operation of the Internet -- such as the spacing of the screw holes in the racks into which the equipment is mounted -- yet we don't standardize them... Frank Kastenholz
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 they who would best comment Joe on the correctness (or lack) of proposed solutions. 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 another protocol and keep current ethernet correctness. Certainly IETF-ers would be useful participants, but keep in mind that transport protocol discussions usually focus at the transport layer (in this case, ethernet) with experts thereof, not at the IP layer. ... While I am not a big fan of emulating ethernet networks over IP networks, this is a pretty clear example of a topic that has both IETF and IEEE components, and which needs attention from BOTH groups. That may be the case, i.e., case for a joint group, but this is clearly outside sole-IETF scope per se. Joe
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 another protocol and keep current ethernet correctness. To be more specific, if anything the IEEE would want to do to carry Ethernet over IP would require modifications to protocols which the IETF feels protective about, the work should be done under the auspices of the IETF. They should give us requirements -- we know our protocols better than they do.
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 carry ethernet over another protocol and keep current ethernet correctness. To be more specific, if anything the IEEE would want to do to carry Ethernet over IP would require modifications to protocols which the IETF feels protective about, the work should be done under the auspices of the IETF. They should give us requirements -- we know our protocols better than they do. By the same argument, they also know their protocols (L2) better than we do. It should be the other way around regarding protocol modification, IMHO. Running L2 over IP is putting protocols (L2) on top of an environment they are not designed for. The most critical ones being the latency or timing constraints most L2 protocols have. It does not really require modifying IP per se, because you can not get around latency in current Internet. So one would most likely end up relaxing or changing L2 protocols to adapt to the new (and unfit for L2) environment which is the Internet. So if anything, IEEE should be worry more about IETF changing L2 protocols in this case than the other way around. I personally think L2 over IP is outside the scope of IETF, at best you can put them in Transport because that's the result of protocol stacking. Join work with IEEE in this case is definitely a must. yushun. -- Yu-Shun Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 carry ethernet over another protocol and keep current ethernet correctness. To be more specific, if anything the IEEE would want to do to carry Ethernet over IP would require modifications to protocols which the IETF feels protective about, the work should be done under the auspices of the IETF. They should give us requirements -- we know our protocols better than they do. Certainly - IF there are MODS to IP or other IETF protocols. So far, all I've noticed are mods to the semantics of Ethernet. Joe
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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, fairly clearly, fail. And, unfortunately, such WGs seem to be on the increase. It has become common to have a situation in which a group of people with narrowly-focused interests come together and insist, quite loudly and persistently, that they want to do a particular piece of work within the IETF. Such groups are often approved by the IESG: whether to give them a chance, or because turning them down is too painful, or because the work might actually be useful. But, unless we can devise rules that prevent such groups from being chartered, or that kill them immediately if they cannot involve a broad spectrum of the IETF community in their work (and involve them actively), then presuming that their output represents community approval, is extremely dangerous to the goal of producing only IETF protocols that are competent on the public Internet. My observations of such groups is that it is often difficult or impossible to get them to focus on even the applicability (or security or scaling) boundaries of their work; it is difficult to hold the time delays that occur when the IESG identifies and tries to remedy those problems in order to produce a competent, or competently-bounded and documented, protocol as an IESG failure because of excessive processing time. I would like the IESG to consider if the work in the sub-ip area could be considered to meet the description above and, if so, whether it is endemic to the area. (I can easily imagine this is so, although, as I say above, I have no facts to back this up.) If sub-ip represents technologies that don't, and will never, get involvement from a broad spectrum of the IETF community, we shouldn't institutionalize it. In this case, I would be in favor of letting the area expire when the working groups complete their current charters (option 3). --aaron
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 don't, and will never, get Aaron involvement from a broad spectrum of the IETF community, we Aaron shouldn't institutionalize it. How would you define a broad spectrum of the IETF community?
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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) their work is not yet done (with 53 working group IDs currently in progress). It does appear that some of the working groups could finish the work in their charters over the next 6 months but it could be a lot longer for others. It would be useful to have some statistics on these RFCs. Have any been other than Informational? Further, generation of IDs isn't a definition of success; some WGs (at least one in particular in the list above) are blackholes into which every free-radical ID seems to find purchase, regardless of utility, appropriateness, etc. - and often despite explicit AD feedback to the contrary. As part of that analysis a SUB-IP area session was held during the IETF meeting in Atlanta where this topic was discussed. IMO: 1. most of the groups have to work primarily with another area anyway. 2. PPVPN is the exception, because it's creating an entirely new Internet. As such, it belongs under Internet, with liasons to transport, routing, etc. 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), since it was those organizations that defined those LANs, and they who would best comment on the correctness (or lack) of proposed solutions. Solutions in those areas should be brought back to us only to the extent and when it is clear what group is affected, e.g., transport, routing, etc. SUB-IP is currently a place for WGs to hide from the areas they should be working more closely with; the groups have little if anything in common or overlap. The case needs to be made STRONGLY in favor; the default here cannot be the status quo for its own sake. For those reasons I am in favor of #1: 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 (and/or other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the remaining WGs. Some observations regarding some of the points: ... DP4. SUB-IP directorate was very useful when the area was just created. It is currently passive and WGs continue operating just fine. DP5. The sense of the SUB-IP session in Atlanta was that the SUB-IP Area was working and there is no compelling reason to break it up. This was polling the choir. Most attendees are vested heavily in one of the WGs, and the consensus of the WGs is to stay put. IMO, absent a VERY strong, concrete justification to the contrary, this experiment should be declared over. There is a need to clarify the charters of some of the working groups so that the different groups understand what the division of tasks are but it is hard to identify what problem would be solved by breaking up the area. It is critical to ask the converse; what problem is solved by creating a new area? The default is, as per the finite-timescale creation of SUB-IP, that doing 'nothing' means there is no SUB-IP area anymore. Now, in light of that, identify the problem solved by creating an area at this time. So far, all I've seen is yeah, but why change what is currently working? I'm all for that. What worked was a finite-lifetime area, and the default is to cease on schedule. DP6. Extensions to specific IETF technologies should be done in the working groups responsible for those technologies based on requirements provided by other working groups. For example, extensions to OSPF should be done by the OSPF working group based on input from other working groups or individuals rather than being done someplace else. ... 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. Again, the status quo is to cease SUB-IP on schedule. Creating a temporary area does NOT create eminent domain for a permanent area. If it does, we'll never get another temporary area off the ground again, since it'll be considered potentially permanent at the time of the experiment. Consider it ended. Now argue in favor of creation. Joe
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 missed something... What was it again that the I in IP stands for? Many of these discussions (e.g., that of Ethernet over IP) will clearly impact the [global] I in IETF. -danny
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
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 IP), Perhaps I missed something... What was it again that the I in IP stands for? Many of these discussions (e.g., that of Ethernet over IP) will clearly impact the [global] I in IETF. How so? We already have the IP in IP. (pun intended). Joe
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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 Nomcom this year, the area is not necessarily permanent for all time in the future. I am indifferent on the question of whether the SUB-IP Area should continue or not. Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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 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 area. By the Spring meeting, the area should be closed along with WGs that don't fit elsewhere. Tony
IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)
This message was just posted to ietf-announce. Since there may be people who read the ietf list faster than they read ietf-announce, I thought I'd just repost it here. It requests that discussion take place on the IETF list. Harald -- Forwarded Message -- Date: 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 approach to dealing with what we used to describe as sub-IP technologies. At the time the IESG said: Over the years the boundary between 'wires' and IP protocols has become harder to define and the interaction has become more intertwined. For example, what appear as 'wires' or 'circuits' in a virtual network may in fact be routed datagrams in an underlying IP network. The topology of dynamic underlying networks such as ATM and soon switched optical networks can interact with IP-level traffic engineering and routing. Additionally, with IETF technologies such as MPLS we are defining a whole new class of 'wires'. (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/new-area.txt) After the December 2000 IETF meeting and taking into account the discussion at that meeting the IESG formed a temporary SUB-IP Area. IN the announcement of this action the IESG said: It is temporary because the IESG believes that this concentrated sub-IP effort will likely be of short duration, on the order of a year or two. We feel that much of the work will be done by then, and the working groups closed. Any working groups that have not finished when the IESG determines that the area should be closed will be moved into existing the IETF areas where they seem to have the best fit. and The IESG expects to review the development process and charters, however; if we conclude that this expectation is incorrect, we will need to make this area more formal. At that point, the nominating committee will be asked to supply dedicated area directors. (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/sub_area.txt) 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) their work is not yet done (with 53 working group IDs currently in progress). It does appear that some of the working groups could finish the work in their charters over the next 6 months but it could be a lot longer for others. Because the end is in sight for some of the working groups and since the IESG had generally assumed that the area would be a temporary one and the second anniversary of the creation of the SUB-IP area is next spring, analysis was started in the IESG to figure out which areas would be the best ones for the SUB-IP working groups to move to so that they could continue their work. As part of that analysis a SUB-IP area session was held during the IETF meeting in Atlanta where this topic was discussed. There was a spirited discussion during the session on the best path forward. The opinions ranged from following the distribution of working groups, to doing so with some specific changes to keeping the working groups in a separate SUB-IP area. A sense of the room was taken at the end of the discussion and that sense was very strongly that the SUB-IP Area should become a long-term (the description that was used during the consensus call) one and that the nomcom be asked to nominate a person (or persons) to become director(s) of the SUB-IP area. To help provide more information as input for the IESG discussion we would like to continue the discussion started in Atlanta on the mailing list. It is our intention to keep the discussion on the future of the SUB-IP area open, but short-lived, because it would be a very good idea to let the nomcom know ASAP what the future holds as they need to know what expertise is needed in the ADs for the existing areas and if they need to search for additional people. The IESG aim is to be able to let the nomcom know what the future of the SUB-IP work is by the end of the day of Thursday Dec 12th. That date was chosen because it is the date of the next IESG teleconference yet it provides some time for a public discussion. 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 (and/or other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the remaining WGs. 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 3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
[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 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. Option 2 would be fine. Option 3 would be ok too. Yakov.
Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input
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.
