RE: Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?

Lior,
 
As long as this is an IETF work item, discussions need to be conducted on the IETF list. 
 
Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Lior Khermosh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 15 February, 2004 9:14 AM
To: Harrington, David; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?


Hi David,
Just a comment on your comment. Without referring to the question where the MIBs should be I would just like to note, as the editor of the EPON MIB, that I have been receiving in the last few weeks comments about the documents. Obviously the trigger for that is the coming Plenary meeting. However I do accept Dan's comment regarding to reflector's traffic. I will try to bounce any such activity in the future in the reflector since probably one comment can be an opening for a lot of questions from other people. I can not force people to CC the reflector but I will ask them to do so and bounce the comment changes in a note.
 
Lior Khermosh
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Harrington, David
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:45 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?


Hi Dan,
 
Just a comment. At the hubmib interim meeting coresident at the Vancouver IEEE meeting, you seemed pretty insistent that the discussion be brought into the IETF meeting, and not just done by the editors at interim meetings coexistent with IEEE meetings. If the session will be cancelled in Seoul, how will you proceed regarding future interim meetings?
 
if you are getting more involvement from IEEE personnel than IETF personnel, maybe the mib work should be moved into the IEEE and the Hubmib WG closed? As you know, that is the emerging approach being taken for the Bridgemib WG mibs.
 
Just a thought,
dbh


  _____  

From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Hubmib] Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?



I received in the last couple of days notifications from the editors of two of the three documents (generic EFM MIB, and EFM Cu MIB) that they cannot make it to Seoul for the WG meeting. As it looks like they cannot get somebody else to properly represent their work in the meeting, I am inclined to suggest that our meeting in Seoul be cancelled. This is not yet a final announcement, please respond whether you agree or not with canceling the meeting. If you think that we should meet, please let me know how you suggest to cover the agenda items. 

I frankly am concerned with the low level of technical traffic on the list lately. With the first round of WG drafts submitted, I was expecting more feedback and public review. I know that the IEEE drafts are stabilizing as result of the sponsor ballot comments, and I know that there are quite a lot of consistent changes the management sections, specifically in Clause 30 affecting this work. The discussions on MIB-related issues must be conducted on the hubmib WG list. Please remember that in the IETF work the WG list is the main media for work and communication, ensuring the fair and accessible change of views specific to the IETF process. FYI, if you have concerns about spam traffic - this list is manually administered, and as far as I know no spam traffic made it to the list in the last few years.

Regards,

Dan