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. > > 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. > > Data points for the discussion: > > DP1. It does look like a number of the SUB-IP working groups will be > finishing up their main work in the next year and be ready to be closed > until it is time to revise the RFCs based on experience or to advance > them on the standards track. The groups that should be finishing up > include ipo, gsmp and tewg. That would leave mpls, ppvpn and ccamp. > > DP2. WGs in SUB-IP or the work pursued in them came from existing > well-established areas, i.e., tewg came from OPS, gsmp, mpls (with ccamp > and ppvpn as its derivatives) came from RTG. > > DP3. There's still a need for technical oversight from permanent areas, > so some WGs have a technical advisor--normally the AD from the area > where the working group might otherwise live (e.g. CCAMP, and PPVPN > with a RTG AD as the TA). > > 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. > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > The IESG will discuss the matter in its next telechat on December 12. > > -------------------------------------------------- > [1] possible WG to area mappings: > > - IPO has the IP-over-foo property, which is usually addressed > in INT, > > - GSMP came from RTG > > - MPLS (aside from the fact that it came from RTG) deals with a > technology that is arguably another IP forwarding paradigm and relies > heavily on regular routing functionality and/or protocols. > > - CCAMP works on a generalized version of MPLS, which could map > it to RTG as well > > - TEWG came from O&M > > - PPVPN: suggestions have been made of INT, because its tunneling > which is closest to INT, RTG because some of the suggested discovery and > VPN routing mechanisms, and TSV, because its related to PWE3 (in TSV > because of congestion control worries) > > > ===8<===========End of original message text=========== =====
