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

Re: RMON document advancement

Hi,

You want to know the real reason we don't need the 3 level advancement
process for MIBs?

We have our own standards-level mechanism called the STATUS clause.
That's all that's needed.  From an operator or NMS developer POV,
a MIB object is either available for use, warning - being phased out, or
error - already obsolete.  The standards-track level doesn't even enter
into the equation.


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