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

Hi Juergen,

>On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:47AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>Margaret, there is no constant editing. The problem are the turn around
>cycles. If it takes many weeks to follow up on last call comments, then
>there is a problem with the management of this WG. You reactions indicate
>that you do not really want any contribution to this WG

It is true that I do not want any new contributions to the WG, 
because we are supposed to be finishing our work and shutting down. 
I think that I've made it quite clear (on several occasions) that I 
would prefer to step down as chair of this WG, but (to my knowledge, 
anyway), no one has volunteered to replace me.  I am not interested 
in taking on new work that will extend the life of the WG, because I 
don't want to keep running it.  There is no great mystery here...

>  and that you do
>not really care about the documents and the document quality.

I actually do care about the Entity MIB.  I designed it into Wind 
River's virtual router solution and had someone implement it there. 
I found it very useful, and I was quite enthusiastic for a time about 
promoting this MIB to Draft Standard.  I was sorry to see the WG 
choose otherwise, but did support the consensus of the WG to re-cycle 
at proposed rather than remove the alias tables.  Now, people want to 
add additional objects,...  and so on, and so on...

I don't have any problem with the Entity State MIB, except for the 
fact that we don't seem to be able to finish it.  We keep moving (in 
occasional bursts), but I am not sure that we are getting any closer 
to the end.  Are you?  Do you think that the MIB is in substantially 
better shape today than it was a year ago?

Margaret