RE: Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?

David,
 
The Vancouver gathering was an editing session, and not an interim meeting. We had tried to organize an official interim meeting, but this failed for various reasons, most important being that we did not get enough interest from people intending to participate in an interim meeting. 
 
The Area Director made it clear that no interim meeting will be approved by the IESG while the WG does not meet during the regular IETF session. I think that this is fair, and in the spirit of the IETF process. An IETF participant cannot be required to pay an extra participation fee to the IEEE for a hubmib meeting, while the WG does not meet during the regular IETF meetings. 
 
Personally, I do not have a special problem with the MIB work being moved to the IEEE. I would note however, that the IEEE 802.3 WG seems to prefer the current arrangement, and are less inclined than the 802.1 WG to do SNMP MIB work. By the time when the current EFM work was chartered, about 13 or 14 individuals expressed their support for the work in the IETF, and their intention to particpate at different levels.

Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington, David [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 13 February, 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