RE: SMIng summary from the 53rd IETF:

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Title: RE: SMIng summary from the 53rd IETF:

We discussed this at the last IETF and it seemed to have some support.

We also agreed that discussion in list SHOULD continue immediately

(i.e. no need to wait for interim). But some things need to get written down

in more detailed proposals before stuff can make any forward movement.

The WG is quite a bit behind original schedule.

 

Nevertheless, if WG decides not to have an interim, then we shouldn't.

I was just reminding David that it was discussed at the meeting and

so it probably is best to at least mention it in the summary.

 

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Waters [mailto:gww@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:54 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Durham, David; 'Randy Bush'
Cc: sming@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: SMIng summary from the 53rd IETF:

I object to having an interim meeting until we have selected one proposal and we have spent some time developing that proposal. I think that there is still a lot of discussion that can occur on the list before we all have to hop on a plane.

/gww

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 06:28
> To: Durham, David; 'Randy Bush'; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: SMIng summary from the 53rd IETF:
>
> Thanks David.
>
> No mention about possible interim though
>
> Did you check with ASN.1 guys already?
> You were going to do so I think, to try and figure out
> if they have given up (or at least do a fair process
> step of telling them that we assume they have lost
> interest cause they are not posting to mlist nor
> coming to meetings).
>
> Bert