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

SMI Int64 [ Was: RE: Draft Minutues OPS Area Meeting at 56th IETF]



Pls change the topic line if your posting is not 
about a comment/correction on the minutes.

I'd like to keep the orginal subject line to discuss
the correctness/completeness of the minuties, not 
to delve into new/other discussions.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 8:54
> To: ops-area@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Draft Minutues OPS Area Meeting at 56th IETF
> 
> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Bert Wijnen wrote:
> BW> Bert: Next Steps for SNMP and SMI
> BW> 
> BW>   maintenance mode, "step by step"
> BW>      could be done with small design team or full WG process as
> BW>      a generic SNMP/SMI maintenance, but small steps, 
> short timeframe
> BW> 
> BW>   Go for incremental mode. Do "small steps".
> BW>   Other groups were too ambitious.
> BW>   Not all changes will need a working group.
> BW>   Example: Integer64 and Unsigned64
> BW>            could be done with small design team or full 
> WG process as
> BW>            We could do a generic "SNMP/SMI maintenance group".  
> BW>   They get one item and are required to make fast 
> progress -- 3 months.
> BW>   repeat: small (and focused) steps!
> 
> Even this may be hard to achieve.  In the last discussion on the
> SMIng list regarding the addition of Integer64 and Unsigned64 to the
> SMI (which took place on 17 Feb 2003) Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> JS> Note that we have beaten this horse (and similar horses) 
> already so
> JS> many times that I wonder why we have to do it yet again...
> JS> 
> JS> Note also that doing SMIv2.1 will get us back into all 
> these debates
> JS> which we were never able to end with rough concensus so even while
> JS> SMIv2.1 seems simple and easy to do, the reality will be quite
> JS> different.
> 
> I tend to agree with this pessimistic point of view, although 
> I would be
> delighted to be proven wrong.
> 
> Mike
> 
>