RE: RMON document advancement

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

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 02:48
> To: MIB Doctors
> Subject: Re: RMON document advancement
> 
> 
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Do we really need a draft to declare that we're just not going
> > to try to advance any MIBs past Proposed anymore?
> 
> It would probably be sufficient if the OPS AD for NM put a policy
> statement on the OPS web site stating that WGs would no longer be
> required to do that. 

Tough to do if there is no good (IETF) consensus on that.
I am pretty sure I would get a lot of pushback.
If I do it silently, then it works, if we want to make it
a policy statement... I suspect lots of pushback if we do
not have a good document explaining why we do it. And once
we have the document, I'd try to get IETF 
consensus/agreement/no-objection.

> However, before that is done, it would
> probably be a good idea to make a haeds up announcement on the
> ietf-mibs mailing list and the relevant WG mailing lists.
> 

And the best way to do that is to point to a document (does not need
to be more than a couple of pages I guess) which explains the rationale.

> Having said that, I still would like to see a draft announcing that
> policy ... if for no other reason than that it might have the effect
> of prodding newtrk into doing something.
> 

That too. But that would be a side-effect I would think.

Bert
> //cmh
> 
>