RE: RMON document advancement

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

>>>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Andy Bierman wrote:
Andy> [T]here are basically 2 choices:
Andy>   1) silent option: don't ask, don't advance
Andy>   2) nuclear option: document all the ways multi-phase MIB 
Andy>      standards level has hampered, influenced, and even
Andy>      damaged IETF NM standards quality
Andy> 
Andy> I refuse to be the only author on the nuclear option draft.
Andy> It might set into motion a series of events I don't have
Andy> enough time for.

>>>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, David B Harrington wrote:
David> I vote no document. Let's use what resources we have to work
David> on network management issues rather than producing documents
David> about IETF internal processes.

It is hard to argue with that.  Especially the part about "it might
set into motion a series of events I don't have enough time for."
Sometimes internal process documents are useful, or even necessary,
but they sure eat up a lot of energy that could be spent elsewhere.
I'm not sure I would have undertaken the job of editing the MIB
review guidelines if I'd known how long it would take.  Ironically,
the technical parts of the reviewing guide (i.e., how to write MIB
modules) weren't the parts that took most of the elapsed time, it
was IPR boilerplate, copyright notices, IANA considerations, and the
like.  I'm not keen to go down that road again.

>>>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Bert> Thinking about it somewhat and meeting at IETF65 to discuss it
Bert> might be a good idea.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

//cmh