RE: RMON document advancement

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

Thinking about it somewhat and meeting at IETF65 to discuss it
might be a good idea.

In fact, it might be good to schedule a MIB doctors meeting at
IETF65 anyways, together with the new AD and to then evaluate
what we as MIB doctors have done in the past and how we want
to proceed in the future and how we can help the new AD.

Can I get a confirmation of all those who plan or not plan
to come to IETF65? Private email is best and I can keep 
a list of those who plan to attend.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 17:10
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: C. M. Heard; MIB Doctors
> Subject: 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
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>