Re: WG split: why and how?

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:

> 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
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>