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