Hi, My personal assessment is in favor of "1/ Move WGs (back) to permanent areas and close the area" ...primarily because I think that both the general IETF work (as represented by the WGs in the permanent Areas) *and* the work of the transplanted SUB-IP WGs would benefit...and those gains would help us collectively satisfy the marketplace need for us to work in reasonable concert with the OIF, ITU-T, and other relevant industry bodies on the subject set of technologies. I think that making this transition as quickly as possible will yield maximum benefits...putting if off is just a waste of time, IMHO. I would consider this a successful conclusion to the SUB-IP Area temporary assignment. As this would lessen the workload on the ADs involved and not negatively impact the WGs concerned, it seems like a win-win to me. I also agree with the candidate rationale offered in the solicitation message, with the exception that if the GSMP WG continues then I feel that it would better fit in the OPS area (with CCAMP and MPLS in RTG and PPVPN in TSV): "Each WG within SUB-IP definitely has a strong feature that maps it to a given permanent area [1]. The property that logically holds them together in SUB-IP now is the need for coordination wrt the technologies that are normally considered below the IP layer. While this was indeed necessary right after SUB-IP creation, DP4 suggests that the goal has been achieved and the focus is shifting back to coordination with permanent areas (e.g., DP3, as well as the fact that RTG WGs are already dealing with SUB-IP related extensions)." Cheers, BobN