[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RMON document advancement

Hi Bert,

I agree with you, and there are basically 2 choices:
 1) silent option: don't ask, don't advance
 2) nuclear option: document all the ways multi-phase MIB standards level
     has hampered, influenced, and even damaged IETF NM standards quality

I refuse to be the only author on the nuclear option draft.
It might set into motion a series of events I don't have enough time for.
Can we use "MIB Doctors" as the author? ;-)  I suggest we think
about it for awhile, and have a meeting at IETF65 to decide.

IMO, Juergen brought up one of the most important points (again).
Many times we have ignored coupling and cohesion principles
to get around standards advancement problems.  We have good
reason, after 16 or so years of operational experience, to change
the advancement process for MIB modules.

Andy







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