RE: Closing down SMIng WG

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

Thanks Harald. I will include the suggested "fixes" 
you have mentioned.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: woensdag 2 april 2003 8:18
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Iesg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Closing down SMIng WG
> 
> 
> I think your text is fine; pointing out individuals' actions 
> or attitudes 
> would just give you more flak of the "but if everyone agreed 
> with me, all 
> would have been fine" type - which you will get anyway.
> 
> some detailed comments below.
> 
> 
> --On tirsdag, april 01, 2003 19:29:02 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" 
> <bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:
> 
> > When announcing the closing of the WG, I propose
> > to use the text below. I'll wait till Wed 3pm US Eastern
> > to see if any IESG member has concerns or suggestions.
> >
> > I wonder if I should also express that my personal
> > feeling/perception is that:
> >
> > - Various IETF NM community members are too focused on their
> >   own technical (corner) interrests.
> > - Various people seem to have played delay tactics.
> >
> > Maybe that will just evoke too much "political" and ad hominem
> > flames... and so maybe it is better to just keep that to myself.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> > ------------ tex to be used with closing of SMING WG -------
> >
> >
> > - In 1999 and 2000, the IRTF NMRG did a lot of work on a possible
> >   SMIng (Structure of Management Information Next Generation).
> >   The research group developed a complete new SMI language spec
> >   and also had implementations. In addition there were tools
> >   to convert to/from SMIv2 and tools to convert to/from other
> >   languages like IDL etc.
> >
> > - In November 2000, the SMIng WG was chartered. The WG was
> >   specifically limted to NOT try and develop a grandiose mother
> >   of all information/data modeling languages. Instead it was
> >   chartered to enhance the SMIv2 and to try and cater for a
> >   data modeling language that would re-merge the SMI and SPPI
> >   back into one advanced data modeling language. The resulting
> >   Management Information Modules would be able to be used by
> >   multiuple protocols, specifically SNMP and COPS-PR.
> >
> > - The WG was chartered to consider the NMRG SMIng work as base
> >   to start from. A requirements document was the first deliverable,
> >   to try and make sure it would address the most pressing needs
> >   but also to limit it to doable and implementable requirements.
> >
> > - The WG was originally chartered to finish by March 2002.
> >
> > - The WG got bogged down (initially) by defining the requirements.
> >   It took the WG 8 months (a year before the RFC showed up) to
> >   deliver the RFC (3216) that describes them (renamed to 
> "objectives"
> >   because people worried that "requirements" would be used 
> to "force"
> >   various "requirements" into a possible solution, even if the
> >   actual solution would turn out to be un-implementable or
> >   in-practical. In hindsight, I think this were serious signs
>     ^impractical.                       ^these
> >   of trouble in the WG.).
> >
> > - The WG did not show (even rough) consensus on using SMIng as the
> >   base to start from. So the WG then went into a "submission of
> >   proposals" and later "selection" process. I believe this did
> >   bring good discussions into the WG, but it took a long time
> >   before a consensus was formed. The consensus I believe was to
> >   "merge the SMI-DS and the SMIng proposals".
> >
> > - However, when trying to work out that consensus, the WG seemed
>                                  ^from
> >   to have tired of the work. Not enough volunteers could be found
> >   to actually write the "merged" document set and to drive it
> >   to conclusion. During that process, it turned out that various
> >   core contributors continued to have serious concenrs about some
> >   of there original ideas/concerns not being considered/addressed.
>        ^their
> >
> > - It all culminated to a "un-volunteering" at the 55th IETF in
>                          ^an
> >   November 2002. Instead of various members volunteering to help
> >   finish the documents that were agreed to by the WG, one of the
> >   volunteers "un-volunteered" some of the documents he had earlier
> >   volunteered to work on. The WG was warned soon afterwards that
> >   some better consensus, energy and effort towards a good result
> >   was needed in order to continue its work.
> >
> > - We are now 2 years and 4 months after the WG started and we have
> >   seen no new initiatives in the WG for the last 4 months.
> >   What a shame that we have wasted more than two years without
> >   any results. And that while we had such a great base (The NMRG
> >   SMIng documents) to start from.
> 
> **** I would drop the last sentence.
>      The rest of the doc is all "you failed to come to 
> consensus"; this
>      one can be seized upon by both SMIng proponents and opponents as
>      "Bert says we should just have picked SMIng" - with predictable
>      refighting of old wars and personal attacks on you as a result.
> 
> >
> > - If the NMRG wants to publish the original SMIng docs as 
> experimental
> >   or informational RFCs, they should go ahead and do so, so that we
> >   at least keep some record of a specification and implementaion
> >   that once was available.
> >
> 
> Ship it!
>