RE: RMON document advancement

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

What he said ;-)

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen
Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:47 PM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Andy Bierman; MIB Doctors
> Subject: 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
> 
>