RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 discussing whether to shut down asap the WGs that are > > presently in the sub-IP area ? > > maybe some folk are. in fact, the ietf is now big enough that > surely someone is. but i don't think it is one of the alternatives > which harald, bert, scott, the iesg, ... put forward > > > 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 ? > > that was one of the alternatives. though possibly some folk thought > it might have a positive impact on the work going on in the wgs. > > > 3. Are we discussing whether it would be possible to shut down the > > WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area without stating this > > explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs > > to some other areas ? > > indeed, you may be discussing that. seems you are. but i don't think > harald, bert, scott, the iesg ... were doing so. > > randy
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 dissolve sub-IP. That would allow several WGs time to wrap up without extending sub-IP indefinitely. I'm not too familiar with the area, so someone else would probably be more qualified to choose the cut off date. However, for the sake of discussion I propose to continue sub-IP until 9-01-03. ~~~ Ray B. Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.WebmastersGuide.com
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
Yakov Rekhter wrote: Paul, Er, toning down the rhetoric a bit, it is worthwhile to ask two questions: - Does keeping the WGs in one area help significantly? - Does keeping the WGs in the IETF help significantly? I think it would be worthwhile to ask the following three questions: I do too. But it wasn't part of any of the discussion thus far, and is completely independent of needing a SubIP area. All the alternatives that involved moving assumed the current groups relocate under areas they are _already_ supposed to be working closely with anyway. 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, 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 be possible to shut down the WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area without stating this explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs to some other areas ? If we want to shut a WG, one would hope there are better and easier ways than to target the entire area. Joe
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
> 1. Are we discussing whether to shut down asap the WGs that are > presently in the sub-IP area ? maybe some folk are. in fact, the ietf is now big enough that surely someone is. but i don't think it is one of the alternatives which harald, bert, scott, the iesg, ... put forward > 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 ? that was one of the alternatives. though possibly some folk thought it might have a positive impact on the work going on in the wgs. > 3. Are we discussing whether it would be possible to shut down the > WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area without stating this > explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs > to some other areas ? indeed, you may be discussing that. seems you are. but i don't think harald, bert, scott, the iesg ... were doing so. randy
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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, 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 be possible to shut down the WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area without stating this explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs to some other areas ? Based on the discussion this week, these are all very good questions. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
Paul, > Er, toning down the rhetoric a bit, it is worthwhile to ask two questions: > - Does keeping the WGs in one area help significantly? > - Does keeping the WGs in the IETF help significantly? 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, 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 be possible to shut down the WGs that are presently in the sub-IP area without stating this explicitly by dissolving the sub-IP area and moving these WGs to some other areas ? Yakov.
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
Er, toning down the rhetoric a bit, it is worthwhile to ask two questions: - Does keeping the WGs in one area help significantly? - Does keeping the WGs in the IETF help significantly? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 Internet against the advance of the barbarians (i.e., marketplace forces). On the "academic, ivory tower vision of the Internet" - that would be the part that actually works? Or the market forces that brought us NATs, ATM, etc.? Internet users live IN that ivory tower; marketplace forces made money on it too. It's more real than it may appear. Joe
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:34:10 EST, Eric Rosen said: > Naturally every special interest group claims to be the defender of the > values of the larger community. Since there is no way to determine > objectively what is or is not in the "larger community's" interest, a > properly functioning IESG would not try to impose a particular vision, but > would just work to ensure that the output of the WGs is of suitable > technical quality. (Of course, every attempt to impose by fiat a particular > vision of the future is portrayed as an attempt to ensure technical > quality.) And attempts at ensuring technical quality by quashing competent implementations of stupid ideas is seen as "imposing by fiat"? ;) Remember that just because something seems to be a good idea in the WG does not mean that it's a good idea overall. Forest for the trees. msg09765/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 10:34:10AM -0500, Eric Rosen allegedly wrote: > Naturally every special interest group claims to be the defender of the > values of the larger community. Since there is no way to determine > objectively what is or is not in the "larger community's" interest, a > properly functioning IESG would not try to impose a particular vision, but > would just work to ensure that the output of the WGs is of suitable > technical quality. (Of course, every attempt to impose by fiat a particular > vision of the future is portrayed as an attempt to ensure technical > quality.) .. > Gee, we often hear from the in-crowd that one of the problems with the IETF > is that the WG chairs aren't forceful enough in dismissing irrelevant > input. Perhaps "irrelevant" is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think > that irrelevant input should be dismissed more often by the chairs, as long > as "irrelevant" doesn't become a smokescreen for "doesn't accord with my > personal vision of the future." The IETF has to have a unifying vision, or else the Internet will be a hodgepodge. It can have different facets at different layers, and the IETF should limit itself to activities where that vision is important, but you need one. The vision may come from the participants, but the IESG is the focal point where that vision is expressed (imposed). > In cases like this, the charters are often dictated by the IESG, do not > necessarily reflect a good understanding of the WG's subject matter, and may > place arbitrary "prior restraint" restrictions on the solution. Sometimes > it's difficult to do a good job while trying to strictly follow the > charter. Well, that would be a sign of AD weakness. The vision requires input, and the IESG does need to learn, but there needs to be integration.
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
i agree w/ this, currently my preference goes to 3/ and as suggested we should use this time to have a longer term thought about the future of this area, may be we should use this time (between now and this period to be defined) in order to come out with a consistent solution by then, do things 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 the details, being myself active in this domain it is difficult to step back and take another view of the reality) or too far (so that we don't have a good perception of what's really going on), the issue at which distance do we have to place ourself in order to give this answer is quite complex, this period of time wouldn't be wasteful in any case if we can use our experience in order to determine what a consensual future might become in this domain rather than apply some stringent principles this might be beneficial for the whole community; last, rejection or avoidance is here probably too simplistic as a good response to a real concern for a part of the ietf community (the one active in the sub-ip area) thanks, - dimitri. Alex Zinin wrote: > > FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat different paths, > but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm personally skeptical at > this moment about SUB-IP becoming a permanent area (area overlaps, > mission statement, expected number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in > Atlanta a strong message from the SUB-IP community against closing the > area at this time. IMO our best shot now is to continue as is, and > revisit the question in a year or when the situation with "about-to- > conclude" WGs clarifies. > > Alex > > Monday, December 09, 2002, 8:27:43 AM, 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 > > 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. > > > Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas > > was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but > > more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting > > to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last > > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. > > > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. > > And any move at this time to move the WGs would be seen as a slap in > > the face of the quite strong (even if in a limited venue) opinion > > expressed in Atlanta. > > > Right after Atlanta I was convinced that we should follow the consensus and > > ask the nomcom to find a AD but upon refection I'm not sure that is the > > right thing either - partially because as Randy has pointed out, we do > > not have a clear mission statement for such an area but mostly because > > enough of the WGs are close enough to finishing up that we whould have a > > quite small area in 6 months to a year and an area with only 2 or 3 > > working groups seems a bit of a waste. But if there is a long-term > > future for sub-IP work in the IETF then aditional working groups may > > be in the offering. We need the time to reflect on what that future > > should be. > > > So I think we should continue as-is until: > > 1/ the WGs which will finish "soon" finish > > 2/ we (the IESG, IAB & ietf community) figure out what role > >sub-ip should play in the IETF in the long term > > > but it would be good to hear from more of you both to the IETF list and > > to the IESG directly > > > Scott > > ___ > 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. -- Papadimitriou Dimitri E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/ Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 Internet against the advance of the barbarians (i.e., marketplace forces). Naturally every special interest group claims to be the defender of the values of the larger community. Since there is no way to determine objectively what is or is not in the "larger community's" interest, a properly functioning IESG would not try to impose a particular vision, but would just work to ensure that the output of the WGs is of suitable technical quality. (Of course, every attempt to impose by fiat a particular vision of the future is portrayed as an attempt to ensure technical quality.) Keith> I've certainly seen ... the contributions of "outside" participants Keith> dismissed as irrelevant, by even working group chairs. Gee, we often hear from the in-crowd that one of the problems with the IETF is that the WG chairs aren't forceful enough in dismissing irrelevant input. Perhaps "irrelevant" is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think that irrelevant input should be dismissed more often by the chairs, as long as "irrelevant" doesn't become a smokescreen for "doesn't accord with my personal vision of the future." Keith> I've also seen working groups drastically exceed, and in some cases Keith> ignore, charters which were designed to limit the harm they could Keith> do. In cases like this, the charters are often dictated by the IESG, do not necessarily reflect a good understanding of the WG's subject matter, and may place arbitrary "prior restraint" restrictions on the solution. Sometimes it's difficult to do a good job while trying to strictly follow the charter.
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
> 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 perfect but I've repeatedly been amazed at its ability to identify and recruit brilliant and experienced individuals. Keith
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 as expected when the area started. The originally-envisioned hourglass (with CCAMP in the middle) turned into spaghetti. This is not to say that the spaghetti is bad, just that the proposed coordination didn't help keep them on track and therefore might be less needed than some are saying. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 to accomplish their work, but feel they need dedicated area directors to do that. The only reason I can see that this would make any difference is if the AD's in the natural home area were particularly critical of the work. If that were the case, it would be difficult to coordinate with that area as the charter requires, so I can't see that it really matters in the long run. The only real gain here is the ability to run along under the 'natural home' AD's radar until the IESG gets the doc. That could be good because it allows the group to bake the ideas before being criticized, but it could also be bad because it makes the whole IESG look like the bad guys when a doc is rejected after WG last call. If the groups are really expected to close within a year anyway, they must be sufficiently far along that a change in management will not derail their efforts. If that is not the case, how would they survive if sub-IP were a standing area and the nomcom decided to change the AD? In any case, I believe the burden of proof needs to be on those who want the area continued as to why close coordination between the WGs is a more expedient approach to task completion than simply putting them back in their natural homes. Tony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Alex Zinin > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:17 PM > To: Scott Bradner > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area > > > > FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat > different paths, but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm > personally skeptical at this moment about SUB-IP becoming a > permanent area (area overlaps, mission statement, expected > number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in Atlanta a strong > message from the SUB-IP community against closing the area at > this time. IMO our best shot now is to continue as is, and > revisit the question in a year or when the situation with > "about-to- conclude" WGs clarifies. > > Alex > > Monday, December 09, 2002, 8:27:43 AM, 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 > > 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. > > > Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other > > areas was the right thing to do, not because of any > particular event, > > but more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was > > getting to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should > note that the > > last temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the > feedback we got in > > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a > > change. > > > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a > > change. And any move at this time to move the WGs would be > seen as a > > slap in the face of the quite strong (even if in a limited venue) > > opinion expressed in Atlanta. > > > Right after Atlanta I was convinced that we should follow the > > consensus and ask the nomcom to find a AD but upon > refection I'm not > > sure that is the right thing either - partially because as > Randy has > > pointed out, we do not have a clear mission statement for > such an area > > but mostly because enough of the WGs are close enough to > finishing up > > that we whould have a quite small area in 6 months to a > year and an area with only 2 or 3 > > working groups seems a bit of a waste. But if there is a long-term > > future for sub-IP work in the IETF then aditional working groups may > > be in the offering. We need the time to reflect on what > that future > > should be. > > > So I think we should continue as-is until: > > 1/ the WGs which will finish "soon" finish > > 2/ we (the IESG, IAB & ietf community) figure out > what role > >sub-ip should play in the IETF in the long term > > > but it would be good to hear from more of you both to the IETF list > > and to the IESG directly > > > Scott > >
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
> > 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 reflect the broad consensus of the > community, and the IESG is the special interest group. In my experience, IESG has tremendous breadth - considerably exceeding that of any single WG. Keith
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 purposes of improving them, we > as a group should avoid making these sorts of generalizations. Say what > you will about Dan Bernstein. At least his complaints are specific and > backed up. Sometimes it's better to be imprecise than to point fingers and name names. However I am seriously considering pointing fingers and naming names. > Second, I believe the complaints that are alluded to have been raised > again and again and again. Can we as a community learn to agree to > disagree on points of architecture, once decisions have been made? Oh, you're talking about *that* group. I had almost forgotten about them. Keith
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
FWIW, I support Scott's suggestion. We went somewhat different paths, but finally came to the same conclusion. I'm personally skeptical at this moment about SUB-IP becoming a permanent area (area overlaps, mission statement, expected number of WGs, etc.), but we did hear in Atlanta a strong message from the SUB-IP community against closing the area at this time. IMO our best shot now is to continue as is, and revisit the question in a year or when the situation with "about-to- conclude" WGs clarifies. Alex Monday, December 09, 2002, 8:27:43 AM, 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 > 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. > Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas > was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but > more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting > to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. > And any move at this time to move the WGs would be seen as a slap in > the face of the quite strong (even if in a limited venue) opinion > expressed in Atlanta. > Right after Atlanta I was convinced that we should follow the consensus and > ask the nomcom to find a AD but upon refection I'm not sure that is the > right thing either - partially because as Randy has pointed out, we do > not have a clear mission statement for such an area but mostly because > enough of the WGs are close enough to finishing up that we whould have a > quite small area in 6 months to a year and an area with only 2 or 3 > working groups seems a bit of a waste. But if there is a long-term > future for sub-IP work in the IETF then aditional working groups may > be in the offering. We need the time to reflect on what that future > should be. > So I think we should continue as-is until: > 1/ the WGs which will finish "soon" finish > 2/ we (the IESG, IAB & ietf community) figure out what role >sub-ip should play in the IETF in the long term > but it would be good to hear from more of you both to the IETF list and > to the IESG directly > Scott
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
At 05:54 PM 12/9/2002 -0500, Gray, Eric wrote: THE PRESENT SET OF AREA DIRECTORS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A LONG STANDING TREND. (Is that better, Fred?) Wunnerful. Thanks :^)
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
THE PRESENT SET OF AREA DIRECTORS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A LONG STANDING TREND. (Is that better, Fred?) I support option 3). I also suspect that this is not a case of ignoring the consensus of those attending the meeting. Some people may feel that the best way for the ADs involved to find relief from their awesome burdens was to create a new directorship. If that doesn't make sense from their perspective, then why do it? Eric W. Gray Systems Architect Celox Networks, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 508 305 7214 > -Original Message- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:[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 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. It is in fact a large part of the > reason the ADs are asking this question, and BTW the fact that they asked > the area folks the question shows an open-ness of mind. They take a lot of > !@#$%^ from the community, I wish the community would notice when they do > something well, and speak as loudly about it. > > But I should hope that not only would the wishes of the folks in the area > be looked at, but the wear and tear on the ADs, and the management > principles that apply. It has to be a sensible decision on all counts, not > just the presently-popular one. > > >I've aleady posted my personal opinion on where I think we should go with > >sub-ip. To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3 > >(status > >quo). > > which is to say, wait until the work winds down, and then close the > temporary area. I'm glad we agree on that; from your last email, it > sounded > like we didn't. If you go back and read both emails that I have posted to > this list, I have said as much, and I think that's pretty much what Scott > said he came down to in the end.
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
At 01:38 PM 12/9/2002 -0800, Vach Kompella wrote: It has been pointed out that the sub-ip area meeting had an majority that wished the area to continue, at least for the time being. I don't want that to be ignored, or dismissed as "just the choir's opinion". I don't believe it is being ignored. It is in fact a large part of the reason the ADs are asking this question, and BTW the fact that they asked the area folks the question shows an open-ness of mind. They take a lot of !@#$%^ from the community, I wish the community would notice when they do something well, and speak as loudly about it. But I should hope that not only would the wishes of the folks in the area be looked at, but the wear and tear on the ADs, and the management principles that apply. It has to be a sensible decision on all counts, not just the presently-popular one. I've aleady posted my personal opinion on where I think we should go with sub-ip. To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3 (status quo). which is to say, wait until the work winds down, and then close the temporary area. I'm glad we agree on that; from your last email, it sounded like we didn't. If you go back and read both emails that I have posted to this list, I have said as much, and I think that's pretty much what Scott said he came down to in the end.
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
> 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 reflect the broad consensus of the community, and the IESG is the special interest group.
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 for the time being. I don't want that to be ignored, or dismissed as "just the choir's opinion". The general solicitation of input on the ietf mailing list (and, as I suggested in my email, we should probably have included other RTG and TSV working groups - not just those involved in SUB-IP related work), is like the last call. I've aleady posted my personal opinion on where I think we should go with sub-ip. To clarify, in terms of the three options given, it's option 3 (status quo). I am of the opinion that if the target for 3 WGs (ipo, tewg, gsmp) is to close soon, then keeping the area (with the same ADs) open temporarily long enough for the continuity needed to bring stuff to closure is also good management-101. I'm not very bullish on ppvpn closing on schedule. I don't think ccamp and mpls will close that soon. So, I would expect that these two would go into RTG and ppvpn (because of its affinity to pwe3) would go into TSV, but perhaps it may end up in RTG. -Vach > -Original Message- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area > > > 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 outcome. > > AFAIK, we're not discussing document status; we're discussing working > groups and the area that contains them. The documents will be published. > And by the way, what do you think a "last call" is? We *do* in fact ask > folks to comment on drafts being published outside their immediate area of > concern. > > As presented, we are discussing six working groups (ccamp, gsmp, ipo, mpls, > ppvpn, and tewg), down from an original nine if memory serves, and of which > four are likely to complete their work and dissolve during the coming year > anyway. So we're really talking about two working groups: ccamp and mpls. > The comparison is to Transport (27 working groups, up from a year ago) or > Security (17 working groups), and User Services (now closed, with both of > its working groups). > > If there were new working groups spawning here, one might be able to argue > that there is work justifying asking one or two people to dedicate their > time as area directors to managing the working groups. It seems to me that > moving the two continuing-to-be-active working groups to an active home > when the others close is just good-management-101. If we're going to keep > the area open, there needs to be a solid justification for doing so, and > it's not there. >
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 outcome. AFAIK, we're not discussing document status; we're discussing working groups and the area that contains them. The documents will be published. And by the way, what do you think a "last call" is? We *do* in fact ask folks to comment on drafts being published outside their immediate area of concern. As presented, we are discussing six working groups (ccamp, gsmp, ipo, mpls, ppvpn, and tewg), down from an original nine if memory serves, and of which four are likely to complete their work and dissolve during the coming year anyway. So we're really talking about two working groups: ccamp and mpls. The comparison is to Transport (27 working groups, up from a year ago) or Security (17 working groups), and User Services (now closed, with both of its working groups). If there were new working groups spawning here, one might be able to argue that there is work justifying asking one or two people to dedicate their time as area directors to managing the working groups. It seems to me that moving the two continuing-to-be-active working groups to an active home when the others close is just good-management-101. If we're going to keep the area open, there needs to be a solid justification for doing so, and it's not there.
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 purposes of improving them, we as a group should avoid making these sorts of generalizations. Say what you will about Dan Bernstein. At least his complaints are specific and backed up. Second, I believe the complaints that are alluded to have been raised again and again and again. Can we as a community learn to agree to disagree on points of architecture, once decisions have been made? Eliot
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
Here's my personal opinion. I think we have two suck^H^H^H^Hvolunteers :-) I think the area's WGs need ADs who have been close enough to keep the continuity of relations with other standards bodies, the past work, etc. Regarding whether there is a need for an area long-term, it would depend on how we foresee the charter of each WG developing. ccamp: no opinion, since I haven't been keeping pace gsmp: their work is nearly done (according to my interpretation of Avri's comments) ipo: no opinion, since I haven't been keeping pace mpls: long-term ppvpn: possibly long-term tewg: their work is nearly done too (from the tewg minutes posted by Jim Boyle) We "don't have visibility into the next year", so we should keep the area as is, which would allow the greatest progress in those WGs that are close to done. We will also know better what to do with the remaining WGs. If at that point, there's still work to be done, but not enough long-term WGs to warrant an area, I am perfectly happy to close the area, and move ccamp and mpls to RTG and ppvpn to (TSV | RTG). -Vach > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott > Bradner > Sent: 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 > 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. > > Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas > was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but > more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting > to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. > > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. > And any move at this time to move the WGs would be seen as a slap in > the face of the quite strong (even if in a limited venue) opinion > expressed in Atlanta. > > Right after Atlanta I was convinced that we should follow the consensus and > ask the nomcom to find a AD but upon refection I'm not sure that is the > right thing either - partially because as Randy has pointed out, we do > not have a clear mission statement for such an area but mostly because > enough of the WGs are close enough to finishing up that we whould have a > quite small area in 6 months to a year and an area with only 2 or 3 > working groups seems a bit of a waste. But if there is a long-term > future for sub-IP work in the IETF then aditional working groups may > be in the offering. We need the time to reflect on what that future > should be. > > So I think we should continue as-is until: > 1/ the WGs which will finish "soon" finish > 2/ we (the IESG, IAB & ietf community) figure out what role >sub-ip should play in the IETF in the long term > > but it would be good to hear from more of you both to the IETF list and > to the IESG directly > > Scott > >
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
> And is that because members of the "larger" community were not allowed to > participate in those WGs whose decisions adversely impacted their interests? I've certainly seen such participation discouraged, and the contributions of "outside" participants dismissed as irrelevant, by even working group chairs. I've also seen working groups drastically exceed, and in some cases ignore, charters which were designed to limit the harm they could do. And your argument is a fallacy. 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. Keith
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
And is that because members of the "larger" community were not allowed to participate in those WGs whose decisions adversely impacted their interests? Because, by your assertion, if they had participated, they would have been part of making the WG decision, which would therefore not have been 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 > > > > 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 interests of the larger community. > > Keith >
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
> 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 interests of the larger community. Keith
Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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 decide the fate of WG docs; the IESG and RFC editors do that. The WGs make their - sometimes myopic - decisions, and the IESG decides how to proceed for the community. By closer analogy, we certainly don't let BOFs decide whether to be WGs themselves. Joe
RE: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area
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. You might not think that's a fair analogy, but it's really the constituents who are most impacted by the decision, not the IETF as a whole. I'm not sure why the other IETF WGs or areas would as a whole care about SUBIP, except on principle. And it's not like they don't have a voice (this mailing list and particularly the plenaries). I think the request for comments might be targeted at a slightly larger audience (other WGs in the Routing Area, Transport Area, Operations Area, perhaps) whose, since not everyone subscribes to the spam abatement, er, ietf mailing list. -Vach > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[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 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 otherwise in the > > next week. > > > > Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas > > was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but > > more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting > > to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last > > temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in > > Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. > > I'll add that most of the attendees at this meeting in Atlanta were from > the WGs themselves. It is unsurprising that the overwhelming position of > that group is to maintain the status quo. Moving them is definitely seen > as unwelcome change from within the groups themselves. > > It would be useful to hear from the community at large regarding this > issue, rather than letting the group decide (essentially) for itself. > > FWIW, I have yet to see a substantive justification for the _creation_ > of a new area yet. I, and others, have pointed out that the 'status quo' > here is to let the area dissolve on schedule. > > Joe > > >
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 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 otherwise in the next week. Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years) But the feedback we got in Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change. I'll add that most of the attendees at this meeting in Atlanta were from the WGs themselves. It is unsurprising that the overwhelming position of that group is to maintain the status quo. Moving them is definitely seen as unwelcome change from within the groups themselves. It would be useful to hear from the community at large regarding this issue, rather than letting the group decide (essentially) for itself. FWIW, I have yet to see a substantive justification for the _creation_ of a new area yet. I, and others, have pointed out that the 'status quo' here is to let the area dissolve on schedule. Joe
