RE: Proposed Addition to CCAMP Charter

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

George... in principle we want all protocols to also define a MIB
such that the protocol is manageable. We DO WANT such an item 
on the WG charter as a work item though.

So... I think things are REAL EASY.
Once we decide on the final I-Ds that are in CCAMP, then if LMP
is part of it, then it seems logical to also do a MIB. We should
then pass that through IESG/IAB as explained by Scott.

Bert

> ----------
> From: 	George Swallow[SMTP:swallow@cisco.com]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:49 PM
> To: 	Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: 	ccamp-wg; Thomas D. Nadeau; Scott Bradner; Sudheer Dharanikota
> (E-mail); Jonathan Lang (E-mail); Evan McGinnis (E-mail);
> swallow@cisco.com
> Subject: 	Re: Proposed Addition to CCAMP Charter 
> 
> Bert -
> 
> > Your WG chairs with the ADs and TAs are evaluating all the I-D summaries
> > that have been submitted with CCAMP as the target WG.
> > Once we have gone through those, we will also address the work item
> > of an LMP MIB (that is if LMP is still also a WG charter item by then).
> 
> It is my understanding that the IESG is actively encouraging MIB work
> to be done along with (i.e. in the same WG) as the protocols they
> manage.  In that regard no explicit mention of a MIB for a protocol is
> necessary in the charter (just like an applicability statement).  Has
> that changed?
> 
> ...George
> 
> ==================================================================
> George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
>