i agree w/ this, currently my preference goes to 3/ and as suggested we should use this time to have a longer term thought about the future of this area, may be we should use this time (between now and this period to be defined) in order to come out with a consistent solution by then, do things in hurry today might be harmful in the future. for instance, i've seen many ways to move wg's i have also my opinion on this but it is based on a perception of the current situation that may be too close from the reality and the day-to-day efforts of sub-ip area working groups (so that we see only the details, being myself active in this domain it is difficult to step back and take another view of the reality) or too far (so that we don't have a good perception of what's really going on), the issue at which distance do we have to place ourself in order to give this answer is quite complex, this period of time wouldn't be wasteful in any case if we can use our experience in order to determine what a consensual future might become in this domain rather than apply some stringent principles this might be beneficial for the whole community; last, rejection or avoidance is here probably too simplistic as a good response to a real concern for a part of the ietf community (the one active in the sub-ip area) thanks, - dimitri. Alex Zinin wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > This message was passed through ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, which is a sublist of ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio. -- Papadimitriou Dimitri E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/ Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361