RE: sming meeting minutes draft... Questions for the wg.

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

Originally there was much excitement around the smi-ds proposal from the wg
participants. Now that we are peeling back the onion a bit I think we are
seeing some of the complexities of this approach emerge, and we are
experiencing some notable feature creep as well. So I wonder if the wg
sentiment is cooling and why. Two fundamental questions that I would like
people to (quickly) respond:

Are people still interested in perusing the hierarchical instance naming
using oids as proposed in the smi-ds document? 

Are you interested in helping by being an editor on one or more of the
documents listed below?


If feature creep and gratuitous changes are the only issues, that is
fixable. I want to understand if the fundamentals of the smi-ds proposal are
still viable and have wg support.

-Dave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:48 AM
> To: Durham, David; sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: sming meeting minutes draft...
> 
> I'd like to get a few more details on this (I think we got them
> at the meeting):
> 
> > Revisited Charter and Milestones. Updated charter was put on
> > the mailing list. No issues raised on the list, no issues
> > raised at the meeting either. According to the charter
> > milestones we are a year behind. The original milestones
> > assumed the nmrg documents which were complete, but the wg
> > chose to investigate the smi-ds route. We will still need a
> > few iterations on the smi-ds/v3 documents before they will be
> > complete. The current proposed list of documents in priority order is:
> >
> > -        1. SMIv3 Language Definition: Andy Bierman
> > -        2. Capabilities MIB: Andy Bierman: DONE
> > -        3. SMIv3 Guidelines
> > -        4. Transition from SMIv2
> > -        5. SMIv3 MIB Modules (core types)
> > -        6. INET Modules (textual conventions)
> > -        7. RFC 2580 Conformance Updates
> >
> > We need volunteers for the documents or the wg will shut
> > down, and the smi will not progress. Previous volunteers for
> > the guidelines and transition documents are waiting for the
> > language definition. In principle, people support the smi-ds
> > work, but we will need people to sign up to get the work
> > done. Likewise from the discussion at the wg meeting it seems
> > that there is a lot of waffling on how we proceed item by
> > item through the open issues listed below.
> >
> My understanding at the meeitng was that Andy un-volunteered for some
> docs. And so I like to clearly understand who is currently volunteer
> for what. I also like to see commitments as follows:
> 
> - Volunteers to commit to deliver a reasonable revision of the
>   document they volunteer for
> - From the WG to do serious review and to provide serious input
>   for the editors and the chair, so that we can get to consensus.
> 
> The lack of WG participation and the lack of enthusiastic volunteers
> for all documents does not bode well. And as David said, we're
> already 1 year behind schedule.
> 
> Thanks, Bert