I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it - some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't - we're too stupid to get it right, so we shouldn't do it - the IETF is too large, so we shouldn't be adding more work
This might be a combination of the latter three, but I think it is clearer for this WG:
- the IETF's track record for this work so far is quite poor
We have not shown any ability to create standards in this area with due speed or predictability. We have not shown the good judgement needed to limit the scope of the work we do. (Look at the number of L2VPN-based Working Group drafts in PWE3 and PPVPN, much less the large number of non-WG documents being actively discussed.
The IETF understands the need for layer 2 technologies for OAM much better than we understand the Internet customer's need (or even concern) for layer 2 transport of their IP packets. This is because we have a tighter relationship with operators than we do with Internet users, and because Internet users generally could care less about how their ISPs move their traffic as long as they meet the service level agreements. The ISPs would love to have better cross-vendor interop for the L2VPN technologies, but so far the vendors haven't had time to think about that because they have been overloaded with the literally dozens of flavors that are being discussed in the IETF.
We will never know if there is another organization who could do a better job than this because no other organization will take on the work while the 800-pound gorilla of standards bodies is flailing around in the area. There are certainly other organizations that can take it on, such as the MPLS and Frame Relay Alliance. They might do just as bad of a job as we have so far, but they could also do much better because they are much more focused.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium