Subject: RE: WG split: why and how?

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:32:42 -0400

At 10:52 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Bilel Jamoussi wrote:

>BNJ> Folks, 
>
>BNJ> I also believe Marco has done a very good job managing the PPVPN WG. 
>BNJ> If you share this "vote of confidence" please voice it to the list. 
>
>BNJ> Bilel. 

I also agree that Marco and Rick have done a good job of chairing the 
PPVPN working group. My recollection is that before Marco and Rick 
got involved in this, there was one or two BOFs on a similar subject 
(VPNs) which sort of went nowhere. When the PPVPN working group 
was started, there was a lot of contention, multiple proposals, and 
considerable skepticism regarding whether it was even possible to 
get some sort of reasonable agreement on direction. Marco and Rick
should be commended on getting us to the point where we have made 
considerable progress and where a lot of good work has been done. I 
can certainly speak from direct experience that they were very helpful 
in getting the layer 3 framework document done (including, for example, 
helping to set up the group which wrote the document). 

However, I don't see how this is particularly relevant in deciding 
whether to split up the PPVPN working group into two (or more) parts. 
There are a huge number of documents being progressed in one group. 
This slows down progress. The enthusiasm with which various Layer 2 
issues are being discussed takes time and attention away from 
discussing other issues. 

I don't think that having two different meetings at an IETF will solve the 
problem. What we really need is to have two different email exploders, 
so that Email related to enhancements to various Layer 3 proposals 
is not on the same Email list as debates over the relative merits of 
VPLS proposals. 

Ross

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:30:42 -0700

In the last few ppvpn WG sessions, several people were turned away for lack
of time, a couple tried to make presentations after the time slot was over,
and so on.  Fundamentally, there is still a lot of work (finishing up on
existing drafts, new drafts, and discussions galore).  We need another
session.  We have before us two approaches:
  - have two ppvpn WG sessions
  - split the WG into two focus areas (L2VPNs and L3VPNs), each with its own
session and WG chairs

It's a large effort, and Marco and Rick have done well to progress it.  But
this is a management issue.  If you believe that there is no easy split down
the ppvpn group along the lines of L2 and L3, then it makes more sense to
have 2 sessions.  If you believe that there is a logical split of the
existing WG, then the more reasonable "throw bandwidth at the problem"
solution is to have 2 WGs.

I think there is enough work and a reasonable split of the ppvpn effort that
having two focus areas is the better approach.

Can we reorganize our thoughts around solving the management issue instead
of whether Rick or Marco did a good job with ppvpn?  What do we lose or gain
with either of the two suggestions above?

Thanks.

-Vach

---

From: "Cheng-Yin Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:21:22 -0400

Vach, Ross,
I also agree that the WG chairs have put in a lot of effort and have
pushed for progress and consensus in PPVPN, and that the division of the
work in PPVPN is an independent issue.

I think the chairs have encouraged consensus, and perhaps ultimately,
the success of the WG(s) may  be determined by the WG members e.g. by
the relevance of the solutions specified here in addressing market
requirements and their technical viability, and not so much by the
number of WG drafts or RFCs produced.

Regards,
Cheng-Yin

---

From: Matt Squire <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 01:41:40 -0400

>  
> Can we reorganize our thoughts around solving the management issue 
> instead of whether Rick or Marco did a good job with ppvpn?  What do we 
> lose or gain with either of the two suggestions above?
>  

Ditto.  Rick and Marco doing a good job shouldn't be the deciding factor 
in whether the technical work is best served with two WGs with distinct 
goals and objectives.

- Matt