Re: FW: Who owns/has change control over Printer/Finisher MIBs an d IA NA r elated MIBs

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <200302101441.h1AEfw9K008732@newdev.harvard.edu>, Scott Bradner writ
es:
>> In the end, they eat up a lot of time from me and my MIB
>> doctors to review theit sh..., I mean stuff. And this
>> print-mib itslef is still kind of OK (after having had
>> 5 or so revisions based on repeated comments from me and
>> a few key MIB doctors).
>
>but I would expect that the MIB geeks woudl still do a review
>of any update to this even if was only info - so I'm not
>sure that making it info would save much review time
>
>> The other document draft-ietf-printmib-finishing-14.txt
>> has again similar stuff to RFC2707 on which we put an IESG note.
>> I feel for a similar IESG note for this one.
>
>the 2707 note is rather pointed and I would not want to see that
>on a PS doc but if the MIB is "OK" and it gets a 4-week last call
>woudl it need such a note?
>
>bottom line - I do not see any process problems with Bert's suggestion
>to do this an an Info that obsoletes a stds track RFC

If it's developed by a closed, non-IETF process, I don't see how we can 
make it PS.  I think it has to be Info.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)