David B Harrington wrote:
What he said ;-)
Wow, maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks :-) I was trying to be kind and have some faith that all the work on advancement (a major pain for WG Chairs) has not been in vain. But the Emperor has no clothes. We have examples where advancement to Draft has caused harm to the standards quality, and no examples that Draft or even Full Standard status has helped in any way. Do we really need a draft to declare that we're just not going to try to advance any MIBs past Proposed anymore?
David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net
Andy
-----Original Message-----From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of JuergenSchoenwaelderSent: 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 theacceptable 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 whereweat 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