Subject: Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: protocol-specific work

From: Fabio Chiussi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:52:13 -0400

I am quite confused about the process that is being followed to deal 
with the issue of splitting the WG, so I would be grateful if somebody 
can clarify.

First of all, it seems to me that a number of people have expressed some 
very valid concerns on the wisdom/need of a L2/L3 WG split. As far as I 
can tell (and I just spent a couple of hours re-reading the mailing list 
archive, to make sure that I had not missed some key messages), these 
concerns have not been addressed. Also, no strong rationale in support 
of the split has been presented.

Indeed, on the mailing list, I was not able to find any indication of 
consensus being reached on the split and on the best way to split. It 
appears, therefore, that no decision has been reached. At this point, we 
could argue that it is even unclear what we are trying to fix and 
whether the proposed solution has a chance of fixing it.

All this indicates that the issue of splitting the WG and how to split 
it (I am among those many people that just fail to see any strong reason 
in support of an L2/L3 split) needs, at a minimum, further and more 
formal discussion on the mailing list first, and then in person in Vienna.

Instead of such a continuing debate, now we are already seeing charters 
for the new WGs, and discussions on the details of those charters. Given 
the implications of the decision to split (this is more than a WG 
recharter, since it also changes the organization of existing and future 
work), why is this handled this way, by de-facto implying decisions that 
have not been reached through consensus?

Fabio Chiussi

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:25:34 -0700

Fabio,

  /* Please, don't confuse the subject lines--this does not help
   * discussion management. I changed it accordingly.
   */

  Seems that indeed some clarifications might be useful.
  I will get back to the list with a message on this today.
  Cheers.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 23:46:39 -0700

Folks-

As promised (though 11:40-ish my time), I tried to quickly bring
together information that would clarify some confusion I noticed
during the discussion about the work split. I also tried to come up
with answers to questions that I thought might be interesting.

Hope this is helpful.
Regards.

Alex

1. Procedural background:

 1.1 Relevant quotes from RFC 2418:
 
    Section 2:
    
    a) "...A working group may be established
        at the initiative of an Area Director or it may be initiated by an
        individual or group of individuals."

    b) "Working groups are typically created to address a specific problem or
        to produce one or more specific deliverables (a guideline, standards
        specification, etc.).  Working groups are generally expected to be
        short-lived in nature."

    c) "Upon completion of its goals and achievement
        of its objectives, the working group is terminated. A working group
        may also be terminated for other reasons (see section 4)."

        Section 4:

       "If, at some point, it becomes evident that a working group is unable
        to complete the work outlined in the charter, or if the assumptions
        which that work was based have been modified in discussion or by
        experience, the Area Director, in consultation with the working group
        can either:

        1. Recharter to refocus its tasks,
        2. Choose new Chair(s), or
        3. Disband.

        If the working group disagrees with the Area Director's choice, it
        may appeal to the IESG (see section 3.4)."

    d) "The formation of a working group requires a charter which is
        primarily negotiated between a prospective working group Chair and
        the relevant Area Director(s), although final approval is made by the
        IESG with advice from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  A
        charter is a contract between a working group and the IETF to perform
        a set of tasks."

 1.2. WG split is not covered in 2418

    From the process perspective, splitting of PPVPN work is
    considered as 1) termination of the existing WG, 2) formation of
    the new WGs, and 3) relocation of the WG documents to the new WGs.

2. Data about PPVPN WG:

    BOF'ed                    : Pittsburgh, Aug 03, 2000 (NBVPN BOF)
    1st meeting               : San Diego , Dec 14, 2000 (PPVPN BOF/WG)
    WG drafts                 : 17   (as of May 09, 2003)
    Submitted to IESG         : 3 (L3 framework, L3 reqs, generic reqs)
    Approved, in RFC-ed queue : None (as of May 09, 2003)
    RFCs published            : None (as of May 09, 2003)

3. Problem statement.

   As seen by ADs: slow progress on L3 and L2 VPN work (see section 2
   above) caused by comparatively wide problem space with unusually
   big number of correlated technologies (L2, bridging, tunneling,
   routing, signalling, etc.) that in turn results in a big number of
   tasks and documents within the WG. Overloading of the WG resources
   (management cycles, mailing list, and face-to-face meeting time)
   causes slow progress on the existing WG documents that (because of
   the number of incomplete items) keeps continuing VPN technology
   developments outside the WG and makes the process within the WG and
   its results less relevant to the community and the industry. Unless
   addressed, the situation is expected to get only worse.

4. Summary of the solution under consideration

   1. Put L3 and L2 work in separate WGs
      Analysis of the L3 and L2 remaining and potential future work items
      has shown that there is a sufficient amount of work in each area to
      warrant a separate WG. Smaller and more focused WGs tend to be
      more efficient in terms of achieving consensus and completing
      their tasks.

   2. Focus the charters to ensure progress on items already in
      the pipe; expand the charters and add more work items as
      things progress

5. Goal of the discussion on the list

   Collect community feedback on the solution and the charters of
   the proposed new WGs.

6. FAQ

6.1 How is relocating the work to the Internet area related to
    the described problem and the proposed split?

    It is not. Relocation of the VPN work to the Internet area
    is an independent action. However, since the question of
    reorganizing the work is being considered, it is logical to
    do the move at the same time.

6.2 Does the IETF process require consensus within the WG on the problem
    statement and/or the proposed solution?

    Formally, the ADs or the IESG do not need to obtain WG consensus
    on forming, disbanding, splitting a WG, or any other WG management
    actions. However, it is normal for the ADs and the IESG to consult
    the community before making the decisions. This is what happened
    before the discussion was started and essentially what is
    happening on the list now.

6.3 Have you made the decision already or are you still open to
    feedback from the community?

    We came to the WG with a strong opinion that a split is needed,
    however, the decision has not been made yet and we are open to all
    opinions.

6.4 If the decision has not been made yet, why did you start the
    discussion on the charters of proposed new WGs?

    This was done to make sure the community has enough information
    to understand what the results of the split would be, and to
    collect feedback on the charters themselves.

6.5 What would happen to the documents that span both L2 and L3
    VPN areas?

    They would be put in one of the new WGs.

6.6 How would you ensure coordination between the two VPN groups?

    Coordination between different WGs is a well-known task and is
    usually accomplished through direct communication of the WG
    chairs, ministration by ADs, and by formation of technology-
    specific directorates. Formation of the VPN directorate is being
    considered.

6.7 Have you considered other alternatives to the split?

    Yes. The alternative to the split would be to organize work within
    the WG in the form of design teams and have more than one WG
    session at the face-to-face meetings. However, the WG already has
    a number of DTs inside of it, so we can consider that this method
    has been tried already. Increasing the number of WG sessions alone
    is hardly going to help as majority of work is done outside the
    face-to-face meetings, in fact, consistent need for more than one
    session maybe considered as an indication that the WG has more
    than enough on its charter.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 23:58:41 -0700

Fabio,

Please see my other message to the list, it should clarify most of

> formal discussion on the mailing list first, and then in person in Vienna.

I think that continued uncertainty in this case will only make matters
worse. I believe we need to come to Vienna with the resolution at
hand--either sessions of the two new WGs, or the decision to leave a
single WG and a crisp plan forward.

Alex

---

From: "Don Fedyk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 23:59:57 -0400

Alex

You have missed some important facts here.  There were other VPN BoFs 
that were unsuccessful. It was very tough just to get a VPN WG going.  
Early efforts to keep the VPN space small and focused were unsuccessful. 
L2VPNs have a symbiotic/parasitic relationship with  L3VPN technology. 
The wide scope of VPNs is the nature of the beast.  

What I find disturbing is the process of this split logic is superficial 
and the reorganization is rushed. How much time have you spent with 
stake holders trying to address the current issues?  Communication 
between the ADs the IESG and the WG chairs and the members is perplexing 
from my standpoint.   I suggest it would be more fruitful to spend time 
from now to Vienna advancing current work and seeing what is holding up 
the rest.  Lets get this train back on the rails before, if necessary, 
we split the tracks.

Don

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:43:41 +0200

Don,

with exception of the allegation that Alex don't spend enough time with
"stake holders", this seems to be a fair description of the history, but
that's what it is - history. How about looking forward?

/Loa

-- 
/Loa

mobile + 46 739 81 21 64
email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Don Fedyk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:26:28 -0400

Loa

My point was that if you don't  understand the history you will make the 
same mistakes. There is a reason the WG is where it is and only a 
portion of this has to do with the Charter, or organization.  I 'm all 
for moving forward,

Don

Loa Andersson wrote:

>> that were unsuccessful. It was very tough just to get a VPN WG 
>> going.  Early efforts to keep the VPN space small and focused were 
>> unsuccessful. L2VPNs have a symbiotic/parasitic relationship with  
>> L3VPN technology. The wide scope of VPNs is the nature of the beast. 
>> What I find disturbing is the process of this split logic is 
>> superficial and the reorganization is rushed. How much time have you 
>> spent with stake holders trying to address the current issues?  
>> Communication between the ADs the IESG and the WG chairs and the 
>> members is perplexing from my standpoint.   I suggest it would be 
>> more fruitful to spend time from now to Vienna advancing current work 
>> and seeing what is holding up the rest.  Lets get this train back on 
>> the rails before, if necessary, we split the tracks.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> Alex Zinin wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Data about PPVPN WG:
>>>

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 08:26:54 -0700

Don,

> and the reorganization is rushed. 

Agreed.

>                                  How much time have you spent with 
> from my standpoint.   

Agreed.

> I suggest it would be more fruitful to spend time 

I think this is a very reasonble proposal.

Yakov.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 10:39:59 -0700

Folks-

Regarding the dead-line for this discussion and making the decision.
Given the activity on the list, we'd like to give it till the end of
this week. We _will_ make the decision then.

Addressing what hasn't been yet:

Sunday, May 11, 2003, 8:59:57 PM, Don Fedyk wrote:
> ...I suggest it would be more fruitful to spend time

From the perspective of advancing the current work, there's no delay
associated with this discussion. For example, L3 requirements and
L3 framework are on the IESG agenda for the telechat this week.

Monday, May 12, 2003, 2:52:14 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
...
>> Could you send the draft names, pls?

> Note that I'm not implying that they should be in the first charters. I
> understand your 'basic things first' reasoning. Just wanted to say that
> they've had little attention. A few examples:

I got them on my list for further discussion if we decide to go
with the split. Thanks.

Monday, May 12, 2003, 10:59:37 AM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> Agreed. In fact, if the justification for splitting the PPVNP WG
> into two is to allow discussion for L3 services, then following
> the same line of reasoning there should be not one, but two L2 VPN
> WGs, one for L2 VPN services (other than VPLS), and one for VPLS.
> Yet, the IESG said nothing about having two L2 VPN WGs. Perhaps the 
> IESG would be kind enough to explain this inconsistency.

Thanks for trying to catch a possible inconsistency.
"Following the same line" can take one quite far in splitting big
WGs in smaller ones. One clearly has to stop somewhere. Based on
the conversations we had, splitting between L2 and L3 is the most
reasonable choice.

Monday, May 12, 2003, 12:33:08 PM, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:
...
> Seems to conclude that the problem cannot be solved within the
> existing PPVPN WG. Let's get the WG chairs' proposals on how to fix
> the problem within the WG, and discuss their proposals. Let's reach
> a WG consensus as to which solution best solves the problem.

To repeat what I stated already--WG management decisions are not made
by consensus within the WG. It is the AD's and the IESG
responsibility. The ADs will consider the discussion on the list
and conversations with the WG chairs and will make the decision.

Monday, May 12, 2003, 1:20:26 PM, Hamid Ould-Brahim wrote:
...
> If we assume a wg split is necessary (which I am no sure it is
> at this point in time), then why not address VPLS 
> separately from other l2vpn work. A potential option is Yakov's suggestion 
> to split l2vpn in two wgs.

See my answer to Yakov above.

> Another option is to:

> a) Keep ppvpn wg as it is covering l3vpn and l2vpn
>    (other than VPLS), still covering the generic documents, 
>    the common documents/mechanisms, the "Provider-Provisioned" 
>    aspects, inter-as, etc.

I think this would still be too much for one WG.

> and,

> b) Move VPLS specific related work (including provider-bridges liaison,
>    etc) in a "Temporary" focused wg (we have temporary area why not
>    have "temporary WGs" in INT area as well). 

FYI, formally all WGs in the IETF are considered "temporary", leaving
only as long as their charters allow. When all milestones are
completed, the WG potential is reconsidered.

>    While the ppvpn, vpls are progressing we can decide to join them 
>    at a given time. 

> At least this option keeps ppvpn as it is in terms of structure,
> avoids the questions on what to do with common l2+l3
> work, does minimum disruption to ppvpn wg activities in l3, l3+l2 
> space, takes into account that l3vpn work is in its final stage.

I suggest you look at it this way: L3 WG would be a rechartered and a
focused version of PPVPN with L2-related work removed. The discussion
about common L2/3 documents is yet to happen, and if we decide to go
with the split, this will be one of the first things to discuss. We
got the message about importance of these items, rest assured. Wrt
l3vpn in its final stage--it's not going to be affected.

> Other options as well is to look at a re-org from a wider
> angle that affects both PWE3 and PPVPN. For example, merge some
> PWE3 work with l2vpn VPW work, etc (I never understood why 
> some l2vpn signaling is done in another wg).

Seems to me PWE3 has enough workload... Thanks for the suggestion
though, we'll discuss it.

> It looks to me an "easy-step" approach is more appropriate than
> drastic change where the vpn problem is simplified into 
> l3 and l2 work.

I don't believe anyone is thinking that L2 and L3 things are perfectly
splittable. Just like between RTG WGs or in the MPLS/CCAMP case, there
are a lot of connections. We are well aware of that and will deal with
this. Splitting the work in two WGs is targeted to help manage the
workload.

> I definitely favor (as Jerry already noted) a 'let's wait a bit longer'
> approach and progress the current work and if needed discuss in Vienna 
> options and solutions as was suggested by others (and 
> involving all the parties). 

I think I replied to a similar proposal before--uncertainty wrt the
question under discussion is not a good thing. We (the ADs) need to
make the decision sooner than that.

Alex