RE: RMON document advancement

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, 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.

That is the de-facto operating procedure of the Hub MIB WG.

> 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. 
> As a side effect it may (or may not) help NEWTRK, but I would not
> see that as a primary goal.

I agree with all of that.

Mike