Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: protocol-specific work

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