Alex, [clipped]... > Again, I was not on the IESG when PPVPN was started, however, I > think that naturally well-scoped technologies with a clear direction > in the solution space very often do not need requirements and > frameworks. .... > It seems that the VPN problem and solution spaces are large and > complex enough to warrant both requirements and framework documents. > That said, these documents do not have to be long and fat, and it > should be possible to produce an acceptable quality document within > 6 months. > Regarding IESG feedback (where my piece was probably the biggest): > Predicated on the assumption that reqs/fw documents are not needed, > any feedback, whether it is from the IESG or not, will be perceived > as a rock fetch. If we assume those are useful, IESG review is part > of the process of ensuring high quality of these documents. In fact the reason why the PPVPN wg was created is because there were two solutions (VR and 2547) already defined with some known *deployment* already happening. That's what motivated the ADs to scope the WG to just standardize these two solutions which at that time the WG was called "NBVPN" for network-based VPNs. There was in fact no need for the framework and requirements drafts since day one there was no objective to create the "best/optimum" approach and the wg didn't debate at all the question of which one is best VR versus 2547. It was pretty much left to the market to decide. I am pretty sure that the feedback on that was given initially to the ADs/IESG, and I don't understand why it was ignored (at least from my perception). I think the chairs were just following the advice of the IESG on that (that the framework and requirements are necessary before any solution is considered). If you notice the ppvpn charter included a statement that indicates that no new protocols will be developed. This was added because of the existence of the solutions (well before the working group was created), and there was a feeling that if the wg allows for new protocols, etc, the delay for getting the solutions standardized for the providers would have been much bigger. It is ironic that the wg members initially tried to address the potential technical reasons that can happen for delaying the work but couldn't predict that the IESG request to develop the framework and requirements drafts are mostly the reasons for the actual delay. And it is unfortunate that the recent ppvpn decisions just ignored and didn't explicitly acknowledged that fact. I think the delay situation and its impact on the IESG decision on what to do with ppvpn wg should have taken into account the actual history of ppvpn working group... Hamid.