Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 08:58:48 -0800

From the ietf-discussion list.

--
Alex

This is a forwarded message
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc:
Date: Monday, December 09, 2002, 1:21:59 PM
Subject: Reminder: Deadline for input on sub-ip discussion

===8<==============Original message text===============
All,

On Wed Dec 4th, we asked for input to help us decide on the future of
the SUB-IP Area. See our posting at

      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18370.html

We had a large majority of people at the SUBIP Area meeting in Atlanta
expressing that they want the area to be long(er) lived. This will be part
of our input.

But we need/want to hear from the IETF community. So please express
your opionion (and the reasoning behind it) asap on [email-masked], but
certainly before Thursday Dec 12th 10am US Eastern time.

As expressed in the above posting (with data points and discussion
included),
the 3 choices for the SUB-IP Area seem to be:

  1/ move WGs (back) to permanent areas: migrate the SUB-IP
     working groups to other IETF areas sometime soon, likely before next
     summer and close the SUB-IP area. Also, reconstitute the SUB-IP (and/or
     other) directorates to ensure the continued coordination between the
     remaining WGs.

  2/ establish a long-term area: decide that the SUB-IP
     area will be a long-term one, clearly define its charter, and ask the
     nomcom to select one or two people to be Area Directors

  3/ status quo: continue the SUB-IP Area as a temporary,
     ad-hoc effort, much as it has been, with the IESG selecting two sitting
     ADs to continue the effort that Bert & Scott have been doing. But maybe
     give more responsibility to the working group's technical advisors,
     normally the AD from the area where the working group might otherwise
     live.

The opinions expressed so far seem to show clearly that the community is
divided on the issue, with perhaps some preference for the status quo
(alternative 3).

If you have a strong preference for one (or two) of these, and have not yet
said so, please indicate your opinion (and your reasons) by mail to
[email-masked] before Thursday.

Thank you!

              Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG

(please repost this message where appropriate)

===8<===========End of original message text===========