Re: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming

[Jon Saperia <saperia@mediaone.net>]

on 10/22/2000 10:34 AM, Dan Romascanu at dromasca@avaya.com wrote:

> Bert,
> 
> There seems to be a problem here. I was not on new-work, I actually
> was not aware about this list. I received the sming announcement from
> 'IETF-Announce'. If I am the last guy in the IETF that does not know about
> it, I will shamefully stay quiet in my corner. However, if there are other
> people in my situation, then probably this mechanism should be made more
> popular. For instance, the announcement below could include a phrase like
> 'Discussions about the charter of this proposed Working Group should be made
> on new-work@ietf.org'. The current text not only does not contain such a
> pointer but includes a phrase that seems to discourage discussion  (' The
> following Description was submitted, and is provided for informational
> purposes'), and leaves one wondering what is the process of discussing
> future Working Group charters in the absence of a BOF and of an e-mail list
> of the specific subject.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan

Dan,  do not feel bad. You have at least one person in the same situation -
me. I was aware that Juergen was interested in this and expected something
after the IETF presentation, but did not see anything until the Announce
post the other day as well.

I too am used to a BOF or something like that and was not familiar with the
new-work address.

I would like to have seen this earlier as I would have raised the same
objections about a c syntax based system being too costly a change and not
appropriate for our 'users' without corresponding benefit. I applaud the
work to extend the expressiveness of the SMI, but do not believe a change of
this type is needed and the c system optimizes the wrong things. I have
raised these issues to Juergen and others several times in the past.

The purpose of this not is to, re-document this concern, not debate it. I
assume we can in the working group, though the charter as proposed seems to
have the structure as a forgone conclusion.

/jon