RE: WG split: why and how?

Alex,

These clarifications of your first email are
certainly welcome although they are coming *one* day 
before May 11 deadline set in your previous email. 

See some comments inline...

> 
> 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
> 

I am not sure we exhausted all the options. In addition to what George,
Bryan and others suggested on alternatives, other options can be 
considered as well.

If we assume a wg split is necessary (which I am no sure it is
at this point in time), then why not address VPLS 
separately from other l2vpn work. A potential option is Yakov's suggestion 
to split l2vpn in two wgs. Another option is to:

a) Keep ppvpn wg as it is covering l3vpn and l2vpn
   (other than VPLS), still covering the generic documents, 
   the common documents/mechanisms, the "Provider-Provisioned" 
   aspects, inter-as, etc.

and, 

b) Move VPLS specific related work (including provider-bridges liaison,
   etc) in a "Temporary" focused wg (we have temporary area why not
   have "temporary WGs" in INT area as well). 

   While the ppvpn, vpls are progressing we can decide to join them 
   at a given time. 
   

At least this option keeps ppvpn as it is in terms of structure,
avoids the questions on what to do with common l2+l3
work, does minimum disruption to ppvpn wg activities in l3, l3+l2 
space, takes into account that l3vpn work is in its final stage.

Other options as well is to look at a re-org from a wider
angle that affects both PWE3 and PPVPN. For example, merge some
PWE3 work with l2vpn VPW work, etc (I never understood why 
some l2vpn signaling is done in another wg).  

It looks to me an "easy-step" approach is more appropriate than
drastic change where the vpn problem is simplified into 
l3 and l2 work. 

I definitely favor (as Jerry already noted) a 'let's wait a bit longer'
approach and progress the current work and if needed discuss in Vienna 
options and solutions as was suggested by others (and 
involving all the parties). 


Hamid.