RE: WG split: why and how?

In the last few ppvpn WG sessions, several people were turned away for lack
of time, a couple tried to make presentations after the time slot was over,
and so on.  Fundamentally, there is still a lot of work (finishing up on
existing drafts, new drafts, and discussions galore).  We need another
session.  We have before us two approaches:
  - have two ppvpn WG sessions
  - split the WG into two focus areas (L2VPNs and L3VPNs), each with its own
session and WG chairs

It's a large effort, and Marco and Rick have done well to progress it.  But
this is a management issue.  If you believe that there is no easy split down
the ppvpn group along the lines of L2 and L3, then it makes more sense to
have 2 sessions.  If you believe that there is a logical split of the
existing WG, then the more reasonable "throw bandwidth at the problem"
solution is to have 2 WGs.

I think there is enough work and a reasonable split of the ppvpn effort that
having two focus areas is the better approach.

Can we reorganize our thoughts around solving the management issue instead
of whether Rick or Marco did a good job with ppvpn?  What do we lose or gain
with either of the two suggestions above?

Thanks.

-Vach