RE: PPVPN discussion

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Comments inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]
> Sent: donderdag 17 april 2003 10:55
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: PPVPN discussion
> 
> 
> My thoughts on the plan for PPVP below:
> 
> 1. Discuss the first approximation of L3VPN and L2VPN WG charters
>    within the IESG and agree on the plan.
> 
That would be good. And you have already send/posted such charters
to IESG list, so if anyone sees a big issue, pls speak up early.

Might be good to copy IAB I think.

> 2. Make the staff decision:
> 
>    a) Alex, Bert, Thomas to interview Vach, Loa, Ross, and Ron
> 
Alex, did you not already interview all 4 of them?
I thought thomas also spoke with some (if not all)?
I can do same... but is that needed if two (most involved ADs
have already done so) ?

>    NOTE: I am likely to end up having a conflict of interests
>          wrt Vach, so I need to recuse from pushing for him
>          as the L2VPN co-chair, which means someone else should
>          feel strongly about him.
> 
I thought most of us felt he would be a good candidate.
Once WG moves to INT area, your conflict of interest dimishes quite
a bit... so I do not see an issue.
I'd say: let us go for him.

>    b) Decide if we fire Marco and/or Rick or leave [one of] them
>       in the L3VPN WG.
> 
my vote would be do fire them both if above chairs are indeed
willing to take the tasks we envision for them.

>    c) Decide on the new chairs for the open positions.
> 
I am OK with Ross and Ron for L3VPN and Loa and Vach for L2VPN

> 3. A,B,T to discuss the plan below with the proposed new WG chairs.
> 
That we still need to do. I would suggest to have a conf call

> 4. A,B,T to inform the current chairs about the plan.
> 
Again I would schedule a conf call for that. After we have point 2.c 
and 3 in place. And so it would be more a "discuss" instead of "inform",
although I will agree that we are pretty firm on what we want.

> 5. Create two mailing lists for the new WGs: l3vpn, and l2vpn
> 
I'd suggest that new WG chairs can do so as soon as they accept their
chair roles.

> 6. Alex (on behalf of the IESG) to Inform the WG about the plan of 
>    splitting the WG in two and migrating the work to INT.
We could start discussion on that (as opposed to "inform the WG")
on the current WG mailing list right now. That will give the community 
an opportunity to provide input on the idea/plan and it would also
help that things will not show up as a done-behind-the-curtains-deal
by surprise.

>    Direct people to the new MLs for the discussion on the WG
>    charters.
> 
That would happen later

> 7. Discuss the new WG charters on the MLs
> 
Let current WG first get used to the idea that we want two WGs

> 8. Bring the new charters to the IESG for review and approval
> 
yep, that is a formal step that needs to be taken

> 9. When approved--shutdown PPVPN, announce the two new WGs,
>    and send an announcement message to the three MLs.
> 
right

> 10. Shortly migrate PWE3 to INT
> 
That needs to be socialized/discussed on PWE3 mailing list too.
Is it us (SUB-IP and or INT ADs) who must do so or would it
be more appropriate for Jon/Allison to start discussion?

> -----------
> 
> Proposed message to PPVPN (item 6 above):
> 
> To: ppvpn
> Cc: pwe3
> Subject: IMPORTANT: Strategy for the PPVPN work in IETF
> 
> <On behalf of IESG>
> 
> Since San Francisco IETF meeting the IESG has been considering the
> situation in the SUB-IP area and in the PPVPN Working Group in particular.
> Such close attention to this WG was triggered by numerous concerns that
> the IESG members received from the WG members about limited and very
> slow progress within the WG despite the efforts of the WG chairs and its
> members. The IESG also used this opportunity to consider the right IETF
> area for the PPVPN work.
> 
> After much deliberation, the IESG is convinced that in order to ensure

Not sure IESG is completely behind it yet, are we? 
If yes, then:
  s/is convinced/is considering/
If not, then:
  s/IESG is convinced/The involved ADs are considering/

> faster progress of the PPVPN-related work, the following organizational
> changes are required:
> 
s/are required/would improve WG focus and productivity/

>  1. Split of Layer-2 and Layer-3 VPN work in separate Working Groups.
> 
>     The IESG believes that the L2 and L3 VPN work spaces are each big
s/The IESG believes that/The/
>     enough to warrant a separate WG. While concentration of all VPN-related 
>     work in a single forum was the right thing to do to ensure coordination 
>     of efforts when the PPVPN WG was created, such concentration is causing
>     efficiency problems within the WG at this moment. 
> 
>     Migration of work into two separate WGs for L2 and L3 VPN technologies
>     with more specific WG charters will help to focus discussions, prevent 
>     staff and meeting time overloading, and will aid faster progress of 
>     corresponding technologies.
> 
>  2. Migration of the PPVPN- and PWE3-related work to the same area.
> 
>     The work happening within the PPVPN and PWE3 WGs is very related.
>     The IESG believes that moving the above new WGs and PWE3 to the
s/The IESG believes/It seems that/

>     same area is a necessary requirement for faster progress in this

s/is a necessary requirement/would create an environment/
>     area. The IESG also believes that the Internet area should host

s/the IESG/We/

>     this work.
> 
> Based on the above considerations, the IESG is taking the 

s/the IESG is taking/we propose/
> following steps:
> 
>  1. Two new WGs--L2VPN and L3VPN--are being created in the Internet area.
>     The discussion of the proposed charters of the new WGs will be initiated
>     on the following mailing lists correspondingly:
> 
>       l2vpn@ietf.org
>       l3vpn@ietf.org
> 
Mmm.. we need to create those lists now if that is where we want to
start dicussion. Makes sense to me.

>  2. Once the charters of the new WGs are agreed upon and approved by the IESG,
>     creation of the L2VPN and L3VPN WGs and shutdown of the PPVPN WG will be
>     performed simultaneously. PPVPN WG documents will be migrated to the 
>     corresponding new WGs.
> 
>  3. Within a month (????) the PWE3 WG is migrated to the INT area.
> 
Why not do that at same time?

So in summary, I would post this to the WG list (maybe both PPVPN and PWE3)
really soon, and bring it as a serious proposal instead of a done deal.

Bert
> 
> Alex
>