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: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Scott > Bradner > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 8:28 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org > 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 > >