RE: RMON document advancement

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:57 PM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: MIB Doctors
> Subject: Re: RMON document advancement
> 
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> >Inline
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]
> >>Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 17:49
> >>To: Bert Wijnen
> >>Cc: MIB Doctors
> >>Subject: RMON document advancement
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Bert,
> >>
> >>I hope you had a good vacation.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Yes I did. The bad news is always when you come back and find a 
> >hopeless stack of emails in yiour inbox. Oh well.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>I know you are busy, and you have a lot of things to do 
> before March.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Yes, I do want to try and clean my plate as much as I can so that my 
> >successor can start fresh and with as clean a plate as possible.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>That's why I think we should drop the rfc2613 (SMON-MIB) 
> advancement.
> >>It is in state "waiting for writeup:external party". 
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >So, from what I see, we did do an IETF Last Call, We do have an 
> >implementation report (Dec 2002) And this was just waiting till 2021 
> >was davanced to DS, which we just completed a month or so ago.
> >
> >So if we really wanted to, it would be a matter of:
> >- simple WG Last Call to ask if anyone objects to the report
> >  from Dec 2004 and to move forward now that the pre-req
> >  (2021 to DS) has been completed.
> >- I would re-issue an IETF Last Call, but state that we basically
> >  had no objections back in 2002 and that the recent approval
> >  of RMON2 to DS unlocked this doc.
> >- Put it on IESG agenda and be done with it.
> >
> >I'd say that if anyone at any point raises or suggests we 
> start editing 
> >(for boilerplate and up-to-date security considerations and 
> such), then 
> >we decide to give up and NOT move forward.
> >
> >But... I am not wedded to this. We can also decide to remove 
> the work 
> >item from the WG charter. More below.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> If you and Dan want to do the work, then fine.
> I don't really have any time to spend on updating RMON RFC 
> boilerplate.
> If most of the work is already done, and you just 
> re-designate RFC 2613, then I guess it's worth finishing.
> 

I would like to advance the SMON MIB, we had a decision two years ago to
advance 2613 'as is' when RMON2 is advanced to DS, let us stick to it.
Although vendors were not responsive with providing implementation
reports, we know about several implementations, available for many
years. If there is a need to refresh the boilerplate I would do it,
although I prefer to do some more useful work instead. 

Regards,

Dan