RE: WG split: why and how?

At 10:52 PM 5/12/2003 -0400, Bilel Jamoussi wrote:

>BNJ> Folks, 
>
>BNJ> I also believe Marco has done a very good job managing the PPVPN WG. 
>BNJ> If you share this "vote of confidence" please voice it to the list. 
>
>BNJ> Bilel. 

I also agree that Marco and Rick have done a good job of chairing the 
PPVPN working group. My recollection is that before Marco and Rick 
got involved in this, there was one or two BOFs on a similar subject 
(VPNs) which sort of went nowhere. When the PPVPN working group 
was started, there was a lot of contention, multiple proposals, and 
considerable skepticism regarding whether it was even possible to 
get some sort of reasonable agreement on direction. Marco and Rick
should be commended on getting us to the point where we have made 
considerable progress and where a lot of good work has been done. I 
can certainly speak from direct experience that they were very helpful 
in getting the layer 3 framework document done (including, for example, 
helping to set up the group which wrote the document). 

However, I don't see how this is particularly relevant in deciding 
whether to split up the PPVPN working group into two (or more) parts. 
There are a huge number of documents being progressed in one group. 
This slows down progress. The enthusiasm with which various Layer 2 
issues are being discussed takes time and attention away from 
discussing other issues. 

I don't think that having two different meetings at an IETF will solve the 
problem. What we really need is to have two different email exploders, 
so that Email related to enhancements to various Layer 3 proposals 
is not on the same Email list as debates over the relative merits of 
VPLS proposals. 

Ross