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

I strongly support Sharon's statement about the need seeing this =
document put on the standards track.=20

I also am in favor of the fast track process that Sharon is suggesting.=20

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]=20
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: 20 December, 2004 4:15 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description=20
> Changes (Part II)
>=20
>=20
> hi
>=20
> There is a strong need for this MIB. Turn around times are=20
> slow since this
> working group hasn't responded well historically to trying to=20
> close issues
> quickly.=20
>=20
> We have a number of low-risk changes proposed. I suggest we=20
> make those, keep
> the notifications as they are and then proceed to forward=20
> things up to the
> IESG (without calling YAWLC (yet another working group last call)).
>=20
> Sharon
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 8:35 AM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description=20
> Changes (Part
> II)
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Juergen and Sharon,
>=20
> I don't personally care whether the Entity State notifications are=20
> optional or mandatory, but I do have a concern about this=20
> discussion...
>=20
> This document has been through two or three WG LCs already, and now=20
> we seem to be discussing changes to features of the MIB that have=20
> been constant since the beginning.  It seems like there are always 6=20
> or more outstanding issues with this document.  We fix the current=20
> issues, and then new issues are raised during the LC that is intended=20
> to check the resolutions of the previous issues.
>=20
>   Where does this stop?  At what point can we pull the plug on this=20
> discussion and declare the document "good enough"?  Juergen, do you=20
> have any blocking objections to the publication of this document at=20
> this point?  Or just suggestions for improvement?
>=20
> Personally, I think that this constant editing is a symptom of the=20
> fact that there is no driving force for the publication of this=20
> document.  Do we actually care about getting this document published?=20
> If so, let's reach closure on the existing issues and publish it.  If=20
> not, let's stop thrashing...
>=20
> Margaret
>=20
>=20
> >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 =20
> >> conditionally mandatory. Personally, I'd love to see them=20
> mandatory,=20
> >> but I  think we would need strong consensus to make that change at=20
> >> this point.
> >
> >What were the arguments against making these mandatory?=20
> Generally too=20
> >hard to detect such state changes? Something else?
> >
> >/js
> >
> >--
> >Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International=20
> University Bremen
> ><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725=20
> >Bremen, Germany
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Entmib mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>=20