RE: RMON document advancement

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

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 17:49
> To: Bert Wijnen
> Cc: MIB Doctors
> Subject: RMON document advancement
> 
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 
> I hope you had a good vacation.

Yes I did. The bad news is always when you come back and find
a hopeless stack of emails in yiour inbox. Oh well.

> I know you are busy, and you have a lot
> of things to do before March.

Yes, I do want to try and clean my plate as much as I can so that
my successor can start fresh and with as clean a plate as possible.

> That's why I think we should drop the rfc2613 (SMON-MIB) advancement.
> It is in state "waiting for writeup:external party". 

So, from what I see, we did do an IETF Last Call,
We do have an implementation report (Dec 2002)
And this was just waiting till 2021 was davanced to DS,
which we just completed a month or so ago.

So if we really wanted to, it would be a matter of:
- simple WG Last Call to ask if anyone objects to the report
  from Dec 2004 and to move forward now that the pre-req
  (2021 to DS) has been completed.
- I would re-issue an IETF Last Call, but state that we basically
  had no objections back in 2002 and that the recent approval
  of RMON2 to DS unlocked this doc.
- Put it on IESG agenda and be done with it.

I'd say that if anyone at any point raises or suggests we start 
editing (for boilerplate and up-to-date security considerations
and such), then we decide to give up and NOT move forward.

But... I am not wedded to this. We can also decide to remove
the work item from the WG charter. More below.

> 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.

OK, so then I suggest that you wriet a msg to the RMONMIB list 
stating so and that you plan to suggest to the AD to close the
WG once we get past approval of the RAQMOB documents.
If we get vehement objections we can see, otherwise we 
go ahead as you advise.

> 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 ;-)
> 

I have seen the comments by Mike, Dave (DBH) too.

Would it make sense to write a document that explains why we would 
want to stop advancing MIB documents? 
Would that mean we want to be a bit more strict in screening
MIB I-Ds that want to go PS, since it seems the final doc.
Or would we actively encourage to do new revs based on
experience and recycle at PS.

If we have a good write-up (preferably as an I-D), we may actually
be able to get traction and help the discussion in NEWTRK (which 
is now just stalled I think).

Bert
> 
> Andy
> 
>