RE: Status of the WG

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

Hi Andy,

>...
>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...but I am having a hard type
aligning your statement above with your subsequent
comments on this thread.  Can you please clarify
your position...or do you think I just misinterpreted
the above quote (to mean that you consider some set
of incremental improvements to SMIv2 to be "worthwhile"
from a cost/benefit perspective)?

Thanks,

BobN