Subject: Re: Strategy for VPN work in IETF

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:05:01 -0700

Guys,

[I removed the capitalized word from the subject, since it triggers
 some spam filters, people say]

Let me provide some clarifications wrt the questions raised in this
thread.
 
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.

   So, the changes will not affect how the PPVPN documents are
   progressed.

2. Not much L3 stuff is left anyway, so putting it in a separate WG
   won't help.

   This is, of course, the first thing that was checked before
   deciding whether separate WGs are needed or not. The proposed
   charter of the L3VPN WG will give a clear view of what's left and
   how much time it needs (see also my answer to the next question).
   Long story short, it does look like that there's enough work left
   to warrant a separate WG.

3. What are the new charters going to be like and who are the chairs?

   I am in the process of creating the new mailing lists, as soon as
   they are ready (shouldn't take the secretariat more than 2 days), I
   will inform this list and will post the proposed charters there for
   discussion.

4. "that area AD's" attitude

   To start with, let me point out that the following part of the message--

> Also, these changes are being made for management reasons and are not
> intended to be a "reset" on WG activities or to halt or interrupt progress 
> on current ongoing WG activities.
   
   --was suggested by Thomas who is the proposed responsible AD for
   the new WGs. Thomas and I will keep coordinating during and after
   the transition.

   Regarding other IESG members--this matter (splitting the work in
   two WGs), as well as the proposed new charters have been
   intensively discussed and reviewed within the IESG.

5. What to do with "generic" documents like requirements and terminology?

   For documents that span both WGs, one of the WGs will be made the
   host for each them based on the discussion with the community, authors,
   and WG chairs.

6. Let's see who's complaining, what the concerns are, whether they
   are valid, etc, etc.

   Management of WGs within areas is part of the AD's
   responsibilities. While doing so, we talk to different IETF
   participants, document authors, WG chairs, collect opinions, then
   compare those with our observations, and apply our judgement to
   decide whether something needs to be changed and how.

   Given that these processes happen under the confidentiality
   conditions, it would not be productive and/or constructive to do
   this in public. It does mean that a leap of faith in ADs is needed,
   but I don't think we can efficiently operate without it--someone
   has to be able to make the decisions.

Hope this helps.

Regards
   
-- 
Alex Zinin

---

From: Muneyoshi Suzuki <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 17:34:00 +0900 (JST)

I fully agree with the new strategy for VPN work in the IETF.
It seems painful process, but IMHO, the PPVPN charter covers too 
large technical area. The WG need to progress L3 solution and L2
architecture work simultaneously; it is too much for one WG. I think
this re-organization is good chance to reduce overhead of the PPVPN WG.

Thanks,

Muneyoshi Suzuki
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp.