Re: multi: Re: Protocol operations proposal deadline / shield-eos -...

Hi, Dave,

Even if the working group is not interested in taking it on, I would
find the draft very interesting, to see what you have in mind.

	- Steve

On Friday, September 6 2002, Dave Shield <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> > >   In the short run, I have no problems putting forward both smaller
> > >   and larger solutions, as long as the progress of the larger
> > >   solutions isn't impacted....
> > >                    ..... iff [sic] the WG has sufficient energy to
> > >   carry multiple proposals forward, this doesn't bother me in the
> > >   slightest if there is consensus to do so.
> > 
> > The WG has not had the cycles to produce one solution; as chair, working on
> > two solutions is a non-starter.
> 
> <sigh>
> OK - I withdraw the capability negotiation proposal, and the list of
> suggestions I made on August 2nd.   It seems clear that the concensus
> of opinion is to concentrate on new protocol operations, and there's
> little interest in investigating a "micro-evolutionary" approach.
> 
> I suppose that means that there's little point in submitting the
> "extended error reporting" draft I've just put together?
> 
> Dave


---
Steve Moulton        SNMP Research, Inc            voice: +1 865 573 1434
Sr Software Engineer 3001 Kimberlin Heights Rd.    fax: +1 865 573 9197
[email protected]     Knoxville, TN 37920-9716 USA  http://www.snmp.com