RE: snmpconf advancement

Sorry for pulling the trigger on the wrong words. I'm not questioning
the value of the SNMPconf work to date, rather an interest in seeing it
take the next step towards realizing (or not) a better managed network. 
 
Bruce Boardman - Network Management
Network Computing Magazine
c/o Syracuse University
Machinery Hall
Syracuse NY 13244
Lab 315 443-2040 M 516 448-3772
[email protected]
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Durham, David
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:33 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: snmpconf advancement
 
Just to be very clear, it has been precisely stated by the IESG with
respect to PIBs that the purpose of Proposed status is not to find out
how useful something is. If the usefulness of the work is in question,
then the IESG would only be consistent by progressing the work to
experimental or informational. 
 
I believe the criteria there was to ask who is implementing, and who is
using it. Demonstrating 3GPP adoption and over half-a-dozen
implementations was not even enough to achieve proposed status in the
case of PIBs.
 
-Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Boardman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 1:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: snmpconf advancement
 
I'm glad to see this milestone has been reached. I'm interested in
promoting the advancement of network management an I'm hopeful that the
next step will advance the standard to a Proposed status where we'll
find out how useful (or not) SNMPconf is. 
 
Bruce Boardman - Network Management
Network Computing Magazine
c/o Syracuse University
Machinery Hall
Syracuse NY 13244
Lab 315 443-2040 M 516 448-3772
[email protected]