![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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.
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.Thank you!
Harald Alvestrand, for the IESG
(please repost this message where appropriate)
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.