RE: RMON document advancement

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi Andy,

Are you suggesting that we suspend document advancement until NEWTRK
reaches STD level? ;-)

I agree that for most things nobody cares about advancement beyond PS.
I have no problem with a decision to not bother advancing RMON
documents to status beyond PS. I'd rather see the resources involved
in such an effort put to better use, working to standardize additional
functionality not currently standardized.

Regarding your example, obviously those implementers didn't understand
the distinction between deprecating and obsoleting an object. I hope
you set them straight.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Bert Wijnen
> Cc: MIB Doctors
> Subject: RMON document advancement
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 
> I hope you had a good vacation.
> I know you are busy, and you have a lot
> of things to do before March.   That's why
> I think we should drop the rfc2613 (SMON-MIB) advancement.
> It is in state "waiting for writeup:external party".  There are
> 5 other RMON MIBs that could advance to Draft (or not)
> as well, after SMON-MIB.
> 
> But what's the point?  Nobody cares.
> Nobody ever wants to respond to the implementation surveys.
> Margaret and I did a ton of work on Entity MIB advancement,
> deprecated objects, begged repeatedly for implementation reports,
> republished repeatedly -- and in the end a couple people came
> out of the shadows and said "we implement those objects so you
> can't deprecate them!" 
> 
> Did they ever respond to the implementation survey? No.
> Because nobody cares about a MIB advancing from Proposed to Draft.
> We did a bunch of work, only to cause harm to the standards
> community by attempting to deprecate objects actually in use!
> 
> I cc:ed MIB Doctors to see if I could rile anyone
> into defending the MIB Standards Advancement Process.
> IMO, the whole process should be suspended until the NEWTRK
> work is done.  (Which might be never ;-)
> 
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
>