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: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Alex Zinin > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:17 PM > To: Scott Bradner > Cc: ietf@IETF.ORG > 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 > >