RE: RMON document advancement

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

There is or maybe was a non-technical issue that sometimes made us push
for advancement on the standards track. This was related to the
typically big customers, whose procurement rules required a
standardization status more advanced than Proposed. However, we entered
a vicious loop with MIB modules, and maybe other IETF standard track
documents, as the same customers could not wait for years for the IETF
to advance their documents. Anyway, this seems a historical discussion
by now, and the 2-steps proposal provides an appropriate answer anyway. 

Regards,

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:24 PM
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>