Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Ice,
>
> On 24 Jan 2012, at 11:04, IJsbrand Wijnands wrote:
>
>> Ben,
>>
>>> Yes but one could argue that L3VPN isn't performing that role currently. For example I know of other WGs that follow a process where at least 5 people that aren't the authors must review a draft before it is progressed, if we were to instigate a similar rule in L3VPN I suspect few, if any, drafts would meet the criteria for progression.
>>>
>>> IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that help review, reach consensus and process documents.
>>
>> And by moving it to a different WG you think it will get better?
>
> <hat="individual">
> I don't know if it will get better but I don't think it will be any worse.
> </hat>
>
>> Maybe there is also a role for the WG chairs to solicit input and help drive documents through the WG.
>
> On one hand that's probably a reasonable criticism of the WG chairs.
>
>> But I get the impression the chairs are more interested in killing it.
>
> <hat ="individual">
> I, personally, have no vested interest in whether L3VPN remains "alive" or gets "killed" and FWIW it wasn't the WG chairs that initiated the discussions on whether the WG should remain open, it was our Area Directors.
>

Indeed it was. Speaking just for myself, I also have no vested
interest here. In my opinion, if people want it to continue, they need
to speak up, start commenting on drafts, and re-energize the group.

Regards
Marshall

> I do question whether the L3VPN WG is really providing what the community would generally expect from a WG beyond document processing services and if it isn't then IMO it's hard to justify keeping the WG open when there are other valid routes for progressing those documents.
> </hat>
>
> Ben
>
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> Ice.
>>
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thx,
>>>>
>>>> Ice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maria
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>>>>>> Of Ben Niven-Jenkins
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:59 AM
>>>>>>> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
>>>>>>> Cc: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 Jan 2012, at 06:11, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't we keep the WG open until the WG drafts are finished?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because there's nothing like a deadline to motivate people :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's decided to wind the WG down, what I would expect is that it
>>>>>>> wouldn't just happen overnight but that we would produce a 'plan' for
>>>>>>> closure within a reasonable timeframe (say 6 months) where we would aim
>>>>>>> to finish what we have on our plate first, if possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding WG drafts, currently we have 3:
>>>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards, which has just gone through WG LC
>>>>>>> and about to be sent to IESG for publication
>>>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community, which we will initiate a WG LC
>>>>>>> on shortly
>>>>>>> -> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir, which the authors say needs another
>>>>>>> revision before being ready for WG LC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So getting those finished relatively quickly before closure seems
>>>>>>> achievable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd personally also like the combined extranet draft produced before
>>>>>>> closure but again I'd expect that should be possible relatively quickly
>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can probably do this on the mailing list and don't need a
>>>>>>> face2face meeting, but as such you keep the WG alive until the work is
>>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
>>>>>>>> Sent: zaterdag 21 januari 2012 14:38
>>>>>>>> To: L3VPN; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Possible Shutdown of L3VPN
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear WG members;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the Paris meeting coming up, we felt that you should know that
>>>>>>>> there has been serious discussion of shutting down the L3VPN working
>>>>>>>> group, both because of a decline of work in the group, and because of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> expected new work to come from the DC effort is likely to require a
>>>>>>>> new working group with a different focus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the WG were to be wound down, the basic choices for existing
>>>>>>> drafts are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - to go to last call with the drafts that are ready for it or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - to put outstanding WG drafts into another WG, such as MPLS, or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - to have the ADs sponsor "orphaned" drafts that don't fit in another
>>>>>>>> WG as individual submissions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have polled the current draft authors, and do not see any
>>>>>>>> insurmountable difficulties with this process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There doesn't at present seem to be enough business to warrant
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> L3VPN meeting in Paris. However, we feel that the future of the WG
>>>>>>>> (and of the work)
>>>>>>>> should be discussed in person, so we plan to request time on the
>>>>>>>> agenda to discuss this at
>>>>>>>> the RTGAREA meeting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If anyone feels that closing L3VPN would be a mistake, now is the
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> to speak up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Marshall Eubanks / Ben Niven-Jenkins
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>