RE: Status of the WG

Hi,

At 2/13/2003:04:06 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:

>...
>The cost/benefit ratio for SMIv2.1 seems worthwhile.  The
>need for HC data types has been known since (at least) 1992.
>Mandatory maintenance of SMIv2 is something that should already
>be done, so better late than never.

I agree with that (and with the specific suggestions for SMIv2.1
that Mike outlined earlier)...irrespective of any broader opinions
I might have (or come to have) on the larger issues re EOS, SMING,
and SNMPv3 being discussed on these lists under this topic.

Cheers,

BobN