Re: AgentX WG: New work items or close?

Hi Bob,

I support your list of possible AgentX work items.  

I'm wondering if the original agenda item, "(optional) a programmatic
interface to the services offered by that protocol" is officially
dropped.  I don't know this is necessary.  Possibly others will have a
different perspective?

Also, with respect to work in the EOS and SMIng WG-  I think it best not
to take on any dditional AgentX work items until the EOS and SMIng work
product progresses beyond internet-draft.

Regards,

Mark



"Natale, Robert C (Bob)" wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> With the advancement of the AgentX specs to
> Draft Standard status some time ago, we now
> need to decide whether we want to take on any
> new work items as an WG or ask the IESG to
> close the WG until the time comes to review
> the specs' qualifications for Full Standard
> status.
> 
> The possible work items I know of that we
> could incorporate into a revised charter
> include:
> 
>    - Mechanisms for supporting the SNMPv3
>      security features in AgentX...this has
>      been discussed on the list in the past
>      under the "security credentials" and
>      "isAccessAllowed()" threads.
> 
>    - Process mechanisms for ensuring that
>      IETF standard MIBs are written in such
>      a way as to avoid constructs that
>      prevent or seriously impede standard
>      AgentX support (e.g., avoiding the use
>      of scalar objects).  This might take
>      the form of a new boilerplate section
>      for MIBs called "AgentX Considerations",
>      akin to the "Security Considerations"
>      section currently required.  For vendor
>      MIBs, this process would encourage
>      AgentX supportability.
> 
>    - Any potential revisions to the specs
>      that have surfaced since the implementation
>      survey that we did prior to going to
>      Draft Standard status that we will need
>      to address for Full Standard status...
>      might as well air these at the earliest
>      possible point and come up with solutions.
> 
>    - Any other suggestions from the floor...?
> 
> However, we should undertake these new work items
> *only* if there is sufficient interest in actually
> working on them (writing, editing, reviewing,
> commenting, coding, testing, etc.) among a reasonable
> subset of the group.  Otherwise, we should ask the
> IESG to close the WG.
> 
> So, if you are interested in working on any of
> the above items in this forum, please post your
> comments to the list within the next several days.
> I'll aim for summarizing the response by the end
> of next week (Fri 4/12) and making a recommendation
> to the ADs for their consideration.
> 
> I have bcc:'d the "AgentPP" and "NET-SNMP" lists
> on this notice since they have more AgentX traffic
> than this list -- a good thing at this point! --
> but please post all responses back to this list
> alias only.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BobN
> Chair