Re: PPVPN discussion

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Bert,

>> 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.

Will do so, thanks for the reminder.

>> 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?

Yes.

> I thought thomas also spoke with some (if not all)?

Not all, only Rick, I think.

> I can do same... but is that needed if two (most involved ADs
> have already done so) ?

Fine with me. I'll follow up with Thomas to schedule interviews.

>> 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

Once we're done with interviews, I'll schedule this one.

>> 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.

Agreed.

>> 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.

I think we want the discussion on WG charters to start earlier than
the WGs are formally approved and new guys accept their 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.

Yes, it's a good idea. I think we need to have had a conversation with
the current WG chairs before we do this though.

>> 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?

Agreed, Jon and Allison should do this.

>> Proposed message to PPVPN (item 6 above):
>> 
...
>> 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/

On the one hand, WG management should be done by the responsible
ADs so that if an appeal is filed, the IESG is the first step.
On the other hand, this is a sort of a special case, since we're
moving the work to another area.

I'm fine either way.

>> 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.

OK, once we've talked to the current chairs.

>>  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?

Didn't want tight coupling to delay the VPN-related process in case
the PWE3 part needs more 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.

Agreed.

Alex