John writes:
.. snip ..
> Once we dispose of "make it permanent", then we have more
> flexibility about answers. What should we do? Well, for
> starters and to be very blunt, I'm concerned about the
> implicatons of an eight day review starting on 4 December. The
> IESG has known for two years that this point was coming. An
> area meeting was held in Atlanta, but there was no notice to the
> general community that this was going to be a major topic, no
> strong mention of it at the plenary or pre-Atlanta mailings to
> the whole IETF, etc. I have to consider that a symptom of a
> more general problem.
speaking as one of the (current) ADs of the subIP area.
We really believed that the subip area would accept that the area
would be closed down (as was agreed 2 years ago at the start) and
that the discussion would be more about into which areas each
remaining WG would move. We did announce that the future of subip
was on the agenda as per:
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob@harvard.edu]
Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 15:14
To: agenda@ietf.org
Cc: bwijnen@lucent.com
Subject: SUB-IP meeting agenda
1/ area status ADs 15
chairs
2/ options for the future of the area ADs 15
3/ open discussion all 30
I admit that this was a bit late.
We found out at the meeting that the vast majority wanted to keep
the area. But to say the least... I was suprised. I will let Scott
speak for himself.
I think Harald also explained why we are in such a hurry.
We have our IESG telechat this Thursday and we want to try to
formulate an IESG view of the future of the subIP area and
pass that on to the nomcom. They should have it rather sooner
than later.
In hindsight... yes we should have started this discussion earlier.
Hope the explanation helps.
Thanks for the input
Bert