RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
John writes: .. snip .. Once we dispose of make it permanent, then we have more flexibility about answers. What should we do? Well, for starters and to be very blunt, I'm concerned about the implicatons of an eight day review starting on 4 December. The IESG has known for two years that this point was coming. An area meeting was held in Atlanta, but there was no notice to the general community that this was going to be a major topic, no strong mention of it at the plenary or pre-Atlanta mailings to the whole IETF, etc. I have to consider that a symptom of a more general problem. speaking as one of the (current) ADs of the subIP area. We really believed that the subip area would accept that the area would be closed down (as was agreed 2 years ago at the start) and that the discussion would be more about into which areas each remaining WG would move. We did announce that the future of subip was on the agenda as per: -Original Message- From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 15:14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SUB-IP meeting agenda 1/ area status ADs 15 chairs 2/ options for the future of the area ADs 15 3/ open discussionall 30 I admit that this was a bit late. We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to keep the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. I will let Scott speak for himself. I think Harald also explained why we are in such a hurry. We have our IESG telechat this Thursday and we want to try to formulate an IESG view of the future of the subIP area and pass that on to the nomcom. They should have it rather sooner than later. In hindsight... yes we should have started this discussion earlier. Hope the explanation helps. Thanks for the input Bert
RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
Hi, My personal assessment is in favor of 1/ Move WGs (back) to permanent areas and close the area ...primarily because I think that both the general IETF work (as represented by the WGs in the permanent Areas) *and* the work of the transplanted SUB-IP WGs would benefit...and those gains would help us collectively satisfy the marketplace need for us to work in reasonable concert with the OIF, ITU-T, and other relevant industry bodies on the subject set of technologies. I think that making this transition as quickly as possible will yield maximum benefits...putting if off is just a waste of time, IMHO. I would consider this a successful conclusion to the SUB-IP Area temporary assignment. As this would lessen the workload on the ADs involved and not negatively impact the WGs concerned, it seems like a win-win to me. I also agree with the candidate rationale offered in the solicitation message, with the exception that if the GSMP WG continues then I feel that it would better fit in the OPS area (with CCAMP and MPLS in RTG and PPVPN in TSV): 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). Cheers, BobN
RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
--On mandag, desember 09, 2002 22:59:20 -0800 Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold, 1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective, or less My personal opinion is that it would be less effective, because there would be a larger group that needs to come to consensus on issues - and the group dynamics of a larger group are more complex/take longer than in a smaller group. 2) What would happen to any new IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if the area is shut down ? My personal reading is that the rules permit us to reallocate ADs between areas, and for ADs to resign, but not to remove them. So they would stay around for a while - the next nomcom would make the adjustments needed. In otherwords, does the IESG think that a two new members would help overall effectiveness, or make it lower If the consensus of the IESG is that adding more members would make them less effective go with the victim/temporary route. If the consensus of the IESG is that adding two members would make the IESG more effective, lets look at making it permanent, or have a place to put the extra members when the temporary area shuts down. In other words what makes that IESG more effective
RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
Bert, The explanation helps. Most of my comments were in hindsight and I didn't intend to cast any blame on you (or Scott) for being surprised. And, given the situation in which you found yourselves, and the IESG generally, after Atlanta, I think the way this is being handled is probably among the better solutions possible. I certainly applaud it if the alternative is that the IESG go off in secret and make a decision with no broad community input -- and I assume that, given the time constraints, that _was_ the alternative. But, in hindsight,... (i) I don't like these sorts of surprises that leave little time to think about an important issue. I don't think anyone does. I think all of us who have been around the industry for a while understand that they happen. But, when they happen regularly, I begin to wonder about the management processes that seem to be unable to prevent them. That is a general problem if it is a problem at all, the Sub-IP area issues may or may not be an example or symptom. (ii) This is either an issue that was important enough to discuss with the community or it isn't. If it is, then it should have been mentioned at the plenary and called to the attention of the IETF community as other than an item on a WG/area agenda. Even if you thought it wasn't an issue until after the [sub]area meeting, there should have been opportunity to bring it up at the plenary and to get an announcement out to IETF-Announce during that week indicating it was an issue the community needed to think about. If that didn't happen because you folks are all just too overloaded, then that reinforces the need for some effort to change the level or nature of the load. regards, john --On Tuesday, 10 December, 2002 15:25 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John writes: .. snip .. Once we dispose of make it permanent, then we have more flexibility about answers. What should we do? Well, for starters and to be very blunt, I'm concerned about the implicatons of an eight day review starting on 4 December. The IESG has known for two years that this point was coming. An area meeting was held in Atlanta, but there was no notice to the general community that this was going to be a major topic, no strong mention of it at the plenary or pre-Atlanta mailings to the whole IETF, etc. I have to consider that a symptom of a more general problem. speaking as one of the (current) ADs of the subIP area. We really believed that the subip area would accept that the area would be closed down (as was agreed 2 years ago at the start) and that the discussion would be more about into which areas each remaining WG would move. We did announce that the future of subip was on the agenda as per: -Original Message- From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 15:14 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SUB-IP meeting agenda 1/ area statusADs 15 chairs 2/ options for the future of the area ADs15 3/ open discussionall 30 I admit that this was a bit late. We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to keep the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. I will let Scott speak for himself. I think Harald also explained why we are in such a hurry. We have our IESG telechat this Thursday and we want to try to formulate an IESG view of the future of the subIP area and pass that on to the nomcom. They should have it rather sooner than later. In hindsight... yes we should have started this discussion earlier. Hope the explanation helps. Thanks for the input Bert
RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
(i) I don't like these sorts of surprises that leave little time to think about an important issue. none of us do. which is why all the folk who are involved in the sub-ip area have been discussing this for a while, culminating in a general discussion in the sub-ip area meeting in atlanta. what you, as someone not involved in or tracking sub-ip, have seen is kind of an ietf-wide last call on the issue, as some of use felt that open input from the entire ietf would be useful when dealing with issues of something as large as an area. dunno about the other ads and sub-ip folk, but i have found the ietf-wide input on the sub-ip area issue useful. randy
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to keep the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. This doesn't surprise me. Nearly every working group wishes to perpetuate itself indefinitely, long after its charter goals have been met (and often grossly exceeded). People who are concentrating on a particular problem inevitably tend to see other interesting problems related to the first one. That doesn't mean it's in the IETF's interest for that group to continue to exist. I suspect the same dynamics apply to an area - people working in that area naturally value their work, and are afraid that IETF will not support additional work of that kind if the area goes away. My recommendation is to disband the current sub-ip area as originally planned. It might be that a new area with similar focus should be created soon. But the current area was expressly designed to be limited in duration, and perpetuating it would probably be a mistake. By shutting down the current area it would be possible to start over with a clean slate - to carefully consider whether a new area is appropriate, and if so, whether its focus should be changed from that of the prototype sub-ip area. Keith
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
Option 2 grows the IESG by 1 to 2 ADs. I concur with sediments that this will likely make the IESG less effective, hence I oppose option 2. And as Option 3 has a high chance of becoming option 1 (become temporary things have a tendency to become permanent), I dislike it as well. I favor option 1. Kurt At 01:21 PM 12/9/2002, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: All, On Wed Dec 4th, we asked for input to help us decide on the future of the SUB-IP Area. See our posting at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18370.html We had a large majority of people at the SUBIP Area meeting in Atlanta expressing that they want the area to be long(er) lived. This will be part of our input. But we need/want to hear from the IETF community. So please express your opionion (and the reasoning behind it) asap on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but certainly before Thursday Dec 12th 10am US Eastern time. As expressed in the above posting (with data points and discussion included), the 3 choices for the SUB-IP Area 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. The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo (alternative 3). If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not yet said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] before Thursday. Thank you! Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG (please repost this message where appropriate)
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 10:21:59PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo (alternative 3). That means to me you should just leave it alone for now. Are they destroying the IETF's reputation? Creating designs which make other areas' work impossible? If in fact half the working groups in the area are about to finish, let them do so. This particular problem is one that's getting better, not worse. We have other things that are more urgent. ..Scott
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
I'm in favor of 1/ 3/, again, seems contradictory. The status quo is that it disappears. Continuing it without a fixed end date is to subversively result in 2/ without a clear charter definition and Nomcom participation. To be specific, I don't think 3/ should be on the table, at least not without a finite extension limit. However, what do we expect to change in the next N months? Will all the current groups complete their mission? Will no new groups want to be in this area? If we can't stick to a deadline now, what makes us think we can stick to one in N months? Joe 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.
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: All, snip If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not yet said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] before Thursday. my preferences are 2 or 3, so far i've not seen any other argument for 1 other than it was decided 2 years ago, if we really want the 3 of the wg's to finish let them do so with re-org i strongly doubt that ccamp, mpls and ppvpn are candidates for closing down in 6 months it seems like the arguments by keith, fred and joe are good arguments for that these wg's need a focus of their own if you believ that they are doing harm, that is not reason to re-org, closing down would be called for if you believe they are doing good, let them continue to do so in neither case shuffle groups around helps i can live with status quo /Loa -- Loa Andersson Mobile +46 739 81 21 64 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Harald 2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP Harald area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the Harald nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors Harald 3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary, Harald ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting Harald ADs to continue the effort that Bert Scott have been doing. But maybe Harald give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors, Harald normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise Harald live. I prefer #3 for the next year. However, I would prefer that we change: IESG selecting two sitting ADs to continue to IESG selecting two people as ADs That is, the IESG could select people who aren't currently sitting ADs. (or they can select sitting ADs) ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPfUnDoqHRg3pndX9AQEghQQA57ZhokVCkMDIt8Xix4yu1tjCQEb9JmcD ksrpBr60p3dN5TKnGiHn+qPX6cX0J1PSiiPckkLjN6x1HiKDScxEFncOIeWhx9L0 Zo6dDQIP64Abg4OsF3qiKEOgr5t5QOoMyr1By7f6Q97/iF8KzPQznLmASm+diipd Oy7Y08BefpU= =UHO4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
Michael Richardson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Harald == Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: Harald 2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP Harald area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the Harald nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors Harald 3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary, Harald ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting Harald ADs to continue the effort that Bert Scott have been doing. But maybe Harald give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors, Harald normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise Harald live. I prefer #3 for the next year. The problem with #3 is that there is no timeline of any sort in this option. While option #1 (quoted below) sounds severe, it does not close all the door for Sub-IP. It just forces IETF as a community to rethink whether those remaining wgs (or anything else people come up with then) belong to IETF or not, and if they do, where. I believe this was why the Sub-IP area was marked temporary when it was created; to force us to re-examine the issues now. 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. Status quo (#3) merely delays this discussion indefinitely because of the lack of a timeline and, as Grenville pointed out in his email, no protection against adding new wgs into Sub-IP area. I prefer option #1, and if there are reasons IETF should have a Sub-IP area, they should be argued assuming the area is closed. yushun. However, I would prefer that we change: IESG selecting two sitting ADs to continue to IESG selecting two people as ADs That is, the IESG could select people who aren't currently sitting ADs. (or they can select sitting ADs) ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPfUnDoqHRg3pndX9AQEghQQA57ZhokVCkMDIt8Xix4yu1tjCQEb9JmcD ksrpBr60p3dN5TKnGiHn+qPX6cX0J1PSiiPckkLjN6x1HiKDScxEFncOIeWhx9L0 Zo6dDQIP64Abg4OsF3qiKEOgr5t5QOoMyr1By7f6Q97/iF8KzPQznLmASm+diipd Oy7Y08BefpU= =UHO4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Yu-Shun Wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California
RE: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold, 1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective, or less 2) What would happen to any new IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if the area is shut down ? In otherwords, does the IESG think that a two new members would help overall effectiveness, or make it lower If the consensus of the IESG is that adding more members would make them less effective go with the victim/temporary route. If the consensus of the IESG is that adding two members would make the IESG more effective, lets look at making it permanent, or have a place to put the extra members when the temporary area shuts down. In other words what makes that IESG more effective Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion All, On Wed Dec 4th, we asked for input to help us decide on the future of the SUB-IP Area. See our posting at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18370.html We had a large majority of people at the SUBIP Area meeting in Atlanta expressing that they want the area to be long(er) lived. This will be part of our input. But we need/want to hear from the IETF community. So please express your opionion (and the reasoning behind it) asap on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but certainly before Thursday Dec 12th 10am US Eastern time. As expressed in the above posting (with data points and discussion included), the 3 choices for the SUB-IP Area 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. The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo (alternative 3). If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not yet said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] before Thursday. Thank you! Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG (please repost this message where appropriate)
Re: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion
Bill Strahm wrote: I have an interesting set of questions for you Harold, 1) How effective would the IESG be with 2 more members, more effective, or less 2) What would happen to any new IESG members in the SUB-IP area, if the area is shut down ? I think this is a seductively reasonable-sounding-yet-misguided rephrasing of the issue. Sub-IP as an Area ought to be evaluated on its applicability to the IETF. The IESG support (generally quite well and unthanked) the goals of the IETF. If Sub-IP as an Area makes sense for the IETF, then (and only then) does the question arise of whether to add more IESG members. Let's not get the order reversed. cheers, gja -- Grenville Armitage http://caia.swin.edu.au
