Subject: RE: Strategy for VPN work in IETF

From: "Bilel Jamoussi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:36:59 -0400

Alex,

Bilel,

> 1. Changes will induce additional delays

>    I should have communicated this better, I think. The fact that
>    we're talking about two separate WGs does NOT mean that work within
>    PPVPN is stopped. As my message said, the new WGs would be
>    announced at the same time as the current one would be closed.
>    Until then, the only discussion happening on the new WG's mailing
>    lists would be about the charter and the PPVPN would conduct
>    business as usual. We're closely coordinating with Marco and Rick,
>    so all decisions taken within PPVPN will be effective in the new
>    WGs.

bnj>> Are you implying that the current WG chairs agreed to the split? 
bnj>> Or are they also being "informed" of a decision?

I imply what I say, and I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth.

BNJ> no one is doing that - it's a question for clarification.

Regarding your question, we did have a number of conversations with the
chairs before I sent the message to this list. If you would like to know
Marco's or Rick's opinion on this subject, my recommendation would be to
send them an e-mail and ask.

BNJ> it would be good if you clarify your statement instead of pointing me
to the chairs. 

> Hope this helps.

bnj>> not really - it looks like a solution was cooked up behind closed 
bnj>> door
> to an inexistent / unexplained problem - this goes counter to the open 
> and transparent process the IETF prides itself of!

You are misrepresenting the situation here.

BNJ> I am calling the situation as I see it unfold. Others have made the
same remarks on the list.

It is perfectly reasonable for ADs to form an opinion by talking to IETF
participants and WG chairs not using the microphone in the room and by
exchanging e-mails not using a public mailing list.

It is also reasonable for them to analyze the situation and bring a proposed
solution to the community.

Regarding openness of the process, you probably noticed that we're
discussing the proposed plan in the open. Based on the feedback received,
the involved ADs will decide whether it needs to be changed or not.

BNJ> this is a much different position than what was implied by your
original message. The theme/tone of your initial email was one of informing
the WG of a decision that has already been taken - You are now saying you
are soliciting input to make an informed decision. That's different.

Alex

BNJ> Bilel.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:53:41 -0700

Bilel,

BNJ>> it would be good if you clarify your statement instead of pointing me
> to the chairs. 

"Coordinating with Marco and Rick" means that all steps taken by Marco
and Rick as the WG chairs in PPVPN are checked with the involved ADs
and that we are working closer than usually.

BNJ>> this is a much different position than what was implied by your
> are soliciting input to make an informed decision. That's different.

From my initial message:

...
> After much deliberation, the involved ADs... are considering
...
> Based on the above considerations, we are considering...
...
> We'd like to hear from the WG members if they see any fatal flaws with
> the proposed approach. Please send us your feedback by May 11th.

It's been open from the beginning. There is no conspiracy here.

Alex

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:33:22 -0700

Alex,

> and that we are working closer than usually.

And as Marco indicated in his e-mail:

  We (chairs) have just been requested to provide our advice on 
  WG splitting without having had any way to participate in the 
  discussion on issues.

The coordination seem to be one way - ADs check all steps taken
by WG chairs, yet WG chairs have no way to participate with ADs
in the discussion on issues.
  
Yakov.