RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming

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

Further comments in my earlier comments/answers

> ----------
> From: 	Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: 	Friday, October 27, 2000 2:16 PM
> To: 	'sming@ops.ietf.org'
> Cc: 	'Dan Romascanu'
> Subject: 	RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> 
> Here, inline are my responses/comments
> 
> 	----------
> 	From: 	Dan Romascanu[SMTP:dromasca@avaya.com]
> 	Sent: 	Friday, October 27, 2000 1:04 PM
> 	To: 	'sming@ops.ietf.org'; Dave Sidor
> 	Cc: 	David Perkins; Andrea Westerinen; mibs; nim
> 	Subject: 	RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> 
> 
> 	Bert,
> 
> 	1. You are mentioning that the proposal intents to 'move SMI forward
> to
> 	address some of the issues that have been raised in the last so many
> years'.
> 	In this case the first step should be to specify which problems we
> propose
> 	to solve. Maybe the first item in the deliverables list should be
> 	'Requirements for SMIv3 document'.
> That sounds plausible, but we do know quite a few reqmnts already.
> For sure, I want to get SMI and SPPI back on the same track.
> Now.. I would assume that the first WG meeting, or this mailing list
> right now, allows for discussing this topic. Maybe someone can already
> prepare an I-D to try and list the most important ones.
> 
In fact the Milestones does list such a document as one of the first
deliverables