RE: What to do when moving from experimental to PS

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

> 
> Bert> MIB reviewers/doctors:
> 
> Bert> If you take a look at:
> Bert> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-rfc2786std-00.txt
> 
> Bert> then you can see that the author wants to keep the MIB under
> Bert> experimental, even when we were to approve it as PS.  I think
> Bert> this is wrong... but author keeps pushing back
> 
> [...]
> 
> Bert> Any supporters (with explanation why) for one or the other
> Bert> approach?
> 
> I support to move the top-level registration.
> 
> How many deployed implementations of this MIB are there? How many do
> we expect in 3 years? If the later number is significantly larger than
> the first one, we should just do the right thing. (And if the later
> number is not significantly larger, then there is probably not much
> value to put this on the standards track in the first place.)
> 
Difficult to say if people will actually use it 3 years from now.
The cable-modem industry has this MIB as "mandatory to implement" if
the  cable modems want to be certified, so there is very wide 
implementation and deployment in their industry.

The reason I want it on the standards track is because the security ADs
and many others tell me that this is very usefull technology. 
So one would expect people will adopt it and implement... but who are
we to predict the future.

Bert
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    
<http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>