----- Original Message ----- From: "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Lou Berger" <lberger@xxxxxxxx> Cc: "John Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxxx>; "IETF Discussion Mailing List" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "manning bill" <bmanning@xxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:11 AM > On Aug 12, 2014 11:57 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 08/12/2014 10:05 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > > Indeed, I would say that of the problems I'm aware of, tourists barely > register. > > > > I agree, but one of the objectives stated by the routing ADs for their > > planned routing area reorg is reducing the number of tourists in a WG. > > BTW this is their issue, not mine so they will have to explain. > > Nope - that's not what we said. I'm interested in better signal-to-noise > ratio for participants in a WG. Never have I discussed tourists though > others have helpfully put up strawmen claiming that we had. Alia What I saw you say was "One driver for this reorganization is to get to "right-size" working groups that are large enough to have critical mass and not so large as to have poor signal-to-noise for participants or suffer from disengagement." Trouble is, while there are some WG in the IETF that suffer from this, arguably the list we are on now, I would not place any of the Routing WG in that category. Historically, MPLS would have been in the days of MPLS-TP but those days are long gone so unless and until another SDO wants to crank up the volume on a Routing WG, I fail to see it as justification for a reorganisation. And yes, I think that this is an IETF matter, not just one for a Routing list. Tom Petch > Alia > > > Lou > > >