RE: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)

m: 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 St

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

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 "

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 > A

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 t

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/o

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 is

Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)

> 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)? > Certainly IETF-ers would be useful participants, but keep in m

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 c

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 ho

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 etherne

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, an

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 di

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

Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input (fwd)

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 bes

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),

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

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)

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)

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 d

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 , John Klensin makes the following point: (4) There is a class of WG for which the "bounded outcome" model will,

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: on