Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

Bert,

I understood the nature of the last call. The issues I and others have
raised before and after this most recent IETF relate to what I think is
a lack of consensus about the scope of the work for the WG. The
requirements document is an example. If you wanted to call it some
peoples wish list, I would not object. If it as an rfc,
even an informational one, and it has the words requirements and sming in
it, then I think it is way bloated and will not serve the purpose of
advancing management. 

I have had my say and I appreciate it. Only Juergen and Frank seem to
have spoken strongly in its favor since this last call. Perhaps others
have views as well? 

/jon

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
> > Sent: donderdag 16 augustus 2001 21:47
> > To: Jon Saperia
> > Cc: Olivier Dubuisson; sming@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt 
> > 
> > 
> > HI,
> > 
> > Jon - it sounds to me like you are mixing together two 
> > separate issues.
> > 
> > The first issue is whether or not it makes sense to create a new and
> > quite different language for defining management information for the
> > SNMP protocol.
> > 
> And this is not what the WG Last Call is for.
> The WG Last Call is for trying to get (rough) WG consensus that the
> Requirements/oibjectives document is good enuf to publish as
> Informational RFC and that we can go on with REAL work and use the
> informational RFC as a guideline and our common sense to evaluate
> those requirements/objectives as we struggle further on our path to
> try and complete the WG charter work items.
> 
> Bert
> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/