Re: IETF Sub-IP area: request for input

[Lars Eggert <larse@ISI.EDU>]

Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> - The statement that some of the WGs in the SubIP area are about to
> finish up may be deceptive. Some of the WGs are accepting new 
> proposals on wide-ranging topics. 
This is an important point. An example is PPVPN, which is chartered to 
work on specification of requirements, with new protocol work being 
explicitly out-of-scope.

However, some current PPVPN IDs (and several more targetted at it) read 
more like solution documents for various existing vendor schemes, 
specifying packet headers and MIBs. Another indication is that those IDs 
 aim at standards track, whereas requirements documents would more 
naturally fall under Informational or maybe BCP.

So PPVPN at least seems quite happy to go out-of-scope, and is thus 
unlikely to stick to their given timeframe.

Lars

PS: I support 1/ - close SUB-IP and migrate the WGs.
--
Lars Eggert <larse@isi.edu>           USC Information Sciences Institute

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature