Re: MIB review of <draft-glenn-mo-aggr-mib-05.txt>

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Bob Braden wrote:

>  *> >
>  *> 
>  *> Sorry for the late query, but please remind me why this MIB is
>  *> important enough to use MIB Doctor, IESG, and RFC Editor
>  *> time, but not important enough to be the product of any WG?
>  *> 
>  *> IMO, these precious resources should be used for standard MIBs instead.
>  *> 
>
> I do not believe that IETF process, which is driven almost entirely by
> the interests of individual IETF memberts, has "importance" as a
> criterion for chartering a working group.
>  

s/importance/sufficient interest/

From RFC 2418, sec. 2.1, bullet 5:

 - Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working
     group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to
     produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)?  ...

IMO, the IETF should focus on standards track specifications,
which are produced by WGs.  The IESG should charter a WG when
there are multiple, independent, competent individuals who agree
the "problem" should be solved, and the proposed approach is a
reasonable starting point for achieving a solution.


Andy


> Bob Braden
>
>
>