Re: PPVPN -

Bilel,

> It has been more than a week since the "PPVPN Strategy" discussion
> started on this mailing list.  To date, we have not seen any
> clarification on why the AD thinks there is a problem that warrants
> the WG split

Disagree. There have been reasons given. I think it is fair to say
that some agree with the proposed split, while others do not see a
need, and still others have raised concerns about coordination for
documents that deal with both L2 and L3 in the same document. That
input is being considered by the ADs. I'll also note that in the end,
the ADs will make the decision on whether the split is to take
place. That's why we get paid the big bucks.

> Marco has been the PPVPN WG Co-chair since the WG has been
> chartered. Scott has been his AD for several years.  Looking at
> archives of the PPVPN mailing list, the outgoing AD and the WG
> members did not voice any issues with the WG.

Need I point out that Rick Wilder is also a co-chair of the WG?

Also, I do not think it is constructive to have a detailed public
discussion about issues people may have with the WG operation.  When
people are unhappy with the way a WG is making progress, they contact
the ADs privately. The public mailing list is the last place I'd
expect people would raise such issues.

> Looking at the IESG minutes http://ftp.ietf.org/iesg/
> <http://ftp.ietf.org/iesg/> , there is no indication of a problem
> with the PPVPN WG.

People have noted repeatedly that the IESG minutes are rather dry and
bland (e.g., see the recent discussion on the problem-statement
list). It is the case that with regards to WG management issues, such
discussions are not included in the minutes for obvious reasons.

Thomas