Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: Strategy for VPN work in IETF

From: Waldemar Augustyn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 00:33:21 -0400

Well,

as the co-originator, with Tissa, of the L2 VPN work within PPVPN, I 
would like to say I am glad to see this effort finally recognized as 
significant.  But the two year delay does not impress me.  What is being 
proposed should have been done at that time, two years ago. At the very 
least, the charter of ppvpn should have been adjusted as it was promised 
but never done.  The good thing is, we were able to progress and we will 
continue to progress regardless of what IESG does or does not do.  

It appears, what we're talking about is playing catch up.  The issue is 
really the charter which makes no sense, but  I do not see the point of 
splitting the WG after these years.  But, if all we're being asked to do 
is change a few header lines on our documents, then that's fine.  We're 
easy, glad to make somebody happy.

Waldemar

Alex Zinin wrote:

>Folks,
>
>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.
>
[snip]

>We'd like to hear from the WG members if they see any fatal flaws with
>the proposed approach. Please send us your feedback by May 11th.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Alex Zinin
>IETF SUB-IP Area Co-Director
>
>
>  
>

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 10:43:56 -0400

Alex> these  changes are  being  made  for management  reasons  and are  not
Alex> intended to  be a  "reset" on  WG activities or  to halt  or interrupt
Alex> progress on current ongoing WG activities. 

That being the case, I think  the proposed changes make sense, at least from
the 50,000 foot  level.  (One could hardly say that things  are fine the way
they are!)  I do have the following concerns:

1. Before being comfortable with a  reorganization, I'd like to see what the
   new charters  will be.  I'd particularly  like to be sure  that the L3VPN
   charter is  not constructed so as to  cause a reset.  Same  with the PWE3
   charter; we don't want to have to refight old wars.

2. From ground level, the most important  aspect of a particular WG being in
   a particular  area is the  attitude of that  area's ADs towards  the work
   that the WG is doing.  This is  an unknown to us. Given that at least one
   IESG member  (though not one involved  in this reorg) has  been quoted in
   the trade  tabloids as  saying that this  work is  all a scam  which will
   destroy the  network, you can  see why we  might react cautiously  to any
   proposed change. 

Despite these concerns, I do think  that L2VPN and L3VPN are separate pieces
of work which need separate focus, and  I don't think that there should be a
"sub-ip"  area into  which  one  throws anything  that  might possibly  have
anything to do with MPLS.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 22:09:29 +0200

Alex,

I think that auto92679 is partially correct that it is just impossible
to
master every piece of technology for AD or IESG member... :) Well reg
the split I have a mixed feelings, but I guess I will be fine either way
provided that charters actually and explicitely allow for something
productive to be done in the new groups.

R.

> Such close attention to this WG was triggered by numerous concerns that
> the IESG members received from the WG participants about limited and
> slow progress within the WG despite the efforts of the WG chairs and its
> members. The IESG also used this opportunity to consider the IETF area
> that the PPVPN work would fit best.
> 
> After much deliberation, the involved ADs (Bert, Thomas, and I) are
> considering the following organizational changes in order to improve WG
> focus and productivity and ensure faster progress of the VPN-related work:
> 
>  1. Split of Layer-2 and Layer-3 VPN work in separate Working Groups.
> 
>     The L2 and L3 VPN work spaces are each big 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 and L2 VPN work came in, such concentration is causing
>     scaling 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 VPN-related work to the Internet area.
> 
>     As previously discussed, VPN-related work could be argued to belong
>     to more than one area. Tunneling mechanisms are the property that
>     gravitates this work to the Internet area, which is where we believe
>     the VPN work should go.
> 
>     As part of this move, we are also considering moving PWE3 into INT,
>     so that L2TPEXT, PWE3, and thew new VPN WGs are operating in the same
>     area.
> 
> Based on the above considerations, we are considering the following steps:
> 
>  1. Two new WGs--L2VPN and L3VPN--will be created in the Internet area.
>     The mailing lists will be established and the discussion of the proposed
>     charters of the new WGs will be initiated shortly.
> 
>  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.
> 
> It is our intention to complete this process by the Vienna IETF meeting.
> Also, these changes are being made for management reasons and are not intended
> to be a "reset" on WG activities or to halt or interrupt progress on current
> ongoing WG activities.
>