RE: WG split: why and how?

> 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.

Granted that there is a large number of tasks and documents to manage, which is one reason why work has not been completed.  However, this problem has only recently been identified for discussion on the list, and apparently has not been discussed to any great extent with the WG chairs (Marco's input).  

The PPVPN chairs have ably managed the large workload, e.g., see Marco's very thorough update on 'PPVPN WG Status' at IETF-56 http://ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/slides/ppvpn-1.pdf and comprehensive summary in the minutes http://ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/minutes/ppvpn.htm.  The PPVPN work across the ITU and IETF is well coordinated without any issues (such as have arisen with ITU-IETF interactions in other WGs).

As such, it would be very useful to get the WG chairs' input on the identified issues, and have them propose solution alternatives, rather than taking their comments 'off line' (as Alex has decreed).  This could be the basis for more concrete discussion of solution alternatives, rather than just one alternative.

> 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.
> ...
>
> 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.

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.

Jerry