Re: snmpv3 status

>>>>> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Harrington, David wrote:
DBH> We have been unable to get interoperability testing for RFC2576,
DBH> and thus cannot advance it on the standards track.  Russ, Bert,
DBH> and I have been discussing this, and we are leaning toward asking
DBH> that 2576bis be published as a BCP. Does anybody have any objection
DBH> to this approach?

Either that, or Informational, as I suggested back on 18 Jul 2002:

CMH> [ ...] If, as expected, the IESG reclassifies RFC 1157 and RFC 1901
CMH> to Historic, then the main subject matter of the document will be how
CMH> to make a standard protocol coexist with historic protocols.  In view
CMH> of this, it seems to me that RFC 2576bis should be Informational, not
CMH> standards track.  For one thing, it would be difficult to make the case
CMH> that RFC 1157 could be a non-normative reference (how you could implement
CMH> coexistence with SNMPv1 without looking at RFC 1157 is beyond me), yet
CMH> it could not be normative if RFC 1157 is Historic and RFC2576bis is on
CMH> the standards track.

Personally, I don't think it makes much difference whether the
document is BCP or Informational.  I do think that it's important
to get the document published promptly, so if one route or the
other will be faster maybe that should be taken into consideration.

Mike