RE: RMON document advancement

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

> Do we really need a draft to declare that we're just not going to
> try to advance any MIBs past Proposed anymore?

Sigh. 

<tongue firmly in cheek, and head shaking with frustration >
Obviously it is important to write such a draft. 

There will be CLRs to follow about how to not advance a draft in order
to simplify the process, and CLRs about the required quality of
documents to qualify for non-advancement, and CLRs about the level of
Mib Doctor review required for a non-advancing document.. 

Maybe we should write a companion document for the MIB Review
Guidelines - the MIB Review Guidelines for Non-Advancing Documents.

The goal is to keep all us protocol designers busy so we're not in the
way of the operators who are trying to actually solve network
management problems.

</tongue>

I vote for no document. Let's just not do advancements where
advancement seems meaningless. 

If somebody comes along that wants the enjoyment of advancing a MIB
document through the process, and can produce enough evidenciary
information to justify the advancement, then let him. 

Let's not make a big deal out of this. The Bridge WG (those we could
still find) decided to not bother advancing the documents beyond PS.
We didn't write a draft explaining and justifying the decision,
including dicussion of the impact for all other WGs, or to nudge
NEWTRK to get off their butts ...

I vote no document. Let's use what resources we have to work on
network management issues rather than producing documents about IETF
internal processes.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net