Re: entstate-651 Notification Description Changes (Part II)

Juergen and Sharon,

I don't personally care whether the Entity State notifications are 
optional or mandatory, but I do have a concern about this 
discussion...

This document has been through two or three WG LCs already, and now 
we seem to be discussing changes to features of the MIB that have 
been constant since the beginning.  It seems like there are always 6 
or more outstanding issues with this document.  We fix the current 
issues, and then new issues are raised during the LC that is intended 
to check the resolutions of the previous issues.

  Where does this stop?  At what point can we pull the plug on this 
discussion and declare the document "good enough"?  Juergen, do you 
have any blocking objections to the publication of this document at 
this point?  Or just suggestions for improvement?

Personally, I think that this constant editing is a symptom of the 
fact that there is no driving force for the publication of this 
document.  Do we actually care about getting this document published? 
If so, let's reach closure on the existing issues and publish it.  If 
not, let's stop thrashing...

Margaret


>On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 07:31:28AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>
>>  Well, as I said, I can't think of a design pattern to make then
>>  conditionally mandatory. Personally, I'd love to see them mandatory, but I
>>  think we would need strong consensus to make that change at this point.
>
>What were the arguments against making these mandatory? Generally too
>hard to detect such state changes? Something else?
>
>/js
>
>--
>Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 
>Bremen, Germany
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib