RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming

["Cucchiara, Joan" <JCucchiara@Brixnet.com>]

Jon/Dan,

I too am in the same boat as you and
was not aware of this "new-work" list and
the first time I heard of this new working Group
was on ANNOUNCE.  Likewise I was expecting 
a discussion regarding a BOF.

I also have similar concerns with the Charter.

Is there an archive for the "new-work" list?

   -Thanks, Joan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Saperia [mailto:saperia@mediaone.net]
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 10:58 AM
> To: Dan Romascanu; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; mibs@ops.ietf.org; 
> Jon Saperia
> Cc: iesg-secretary
> Subject: Re: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>