Re: WG split: why and how?

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

Don Fedyk wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> Alex Zinin wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
/Loa

mobile + 46 739 81 21 64
email: [email protected]