[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RMON document advancement
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:22:34PM +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Mmm... I was more thinking of describing why having MIB document
> just at PS and recycle at PS if updates/changes are needed.
>
> I would not want to suggest to dive into the NEWTRK pool.
> You probably will get depressed.
> I was just thinking that if we document why we (MIB people) think
> that one level (PS) and recycling at that if changes/updates are
> needed, then we can see if NM and MIB people support that, and
> we could even try to get that adopted for MIB documents as the
> acceptable process.
I would support a document specific to MIB modules - a problem space
we reasonably understand.
I think we have in this particular space a number of cases where we
can prove that the IETF model causes (a) either (almost) endless
delays or (b) forces artificial document splits or (c) cases where we
at the end manage to advance but only by not doing the updates that
actually would have been required.
In other words, recycling at Proposed seems to document best current
practice in the MIB module space.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany