RE: RMON document advancement

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

Hi

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

Because it is irrelevant to implementors and users.

> From an operator or NMS developer POV,
> a MIB object is either available for use, 

(i.e. is supported by a device's implementation) or it's not.

>  The standards-track level 

And the STATUS clause 

> doesn't 
> even enter
> into the equation.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 11:24 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: C. M. Heard; MIB Doctors
> Subject: 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
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>