[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
>
>