Re: Working Group Status

Andrew Bierman <> Tue, 06 July 1993 21:31 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12933; 6 Jul 93 17:31 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12928; 6 Jul 93 17:31 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA16187; Tue, 6 Jul 93 16:48:04 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Tue, 6 Jul 1993 16:48:03 EDT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA16158; Tue, 6 Jul 93 16:47:59 -0400
Received: from donatello ( by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06590; Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:47:25 PDT
Received: by donatello (4.1/2.0N) id AA09044; Tue, 6 Jul 93 13:47:24 PDT
Message-Id: <9307062047.AA09044@donatello>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1993 13:47:24 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Andrew Bierman <>
Subject: Re: Working Group Status

> July 5 was our deadline to have a document ready for recommendation as a
> Proposed Standard.  The volume of discussion on the list lately has improved,
> but I must apologize that I have not had time to follow it either to moderate
> or contribute, and as such I have little idea as to where the document stands.
> Yes, that means I've not been a good chair.  Real Life intruded.  Anyway...
> *** Call for Consensus ***
> Assuming that we have a relatively up-to-date draft, I propose that we drop it
> in the laps of the Network Management Area Director and his Directorate.  They
> may a) pass it on as a Proposed Standard, b) extend our charter, pick a chair
> that will actually help, and ask that it be improved in specific ways, c)
> terminate the working group, or d) do something else they think of.
> Noting that we have little other choice, do I hear strong objections or
> alternatives?  Also please note that I will not be able to even look at
> replies until Friday (Real Life).  At least this provides an organized topic
> for yelling, and some of the Directorate people are surely listening.
> *** No-Meeting Announcement ***
> We are on the agenda for Amsterdam.  This was a bit unusual, as our schedule
> defines us as done by then.  Due to the aforementioned intrusion of Real Life,
> I will not be in Amsterdam.  There will be no Chassis MIB meeting there.  I
> apologize for this late notice.  See previous excuses.
> 	Bob
this is most unfortunate...
I feel that the MIB was pretty close, and that there was a good
chance of reaching consensus at the amsterdam seems
an almost done deal that the WG will be disbanded...

is the meeting definately cancelled...because I have to change
my travel plans and I won't be able to change them twice
(if a meeting is added back to the schedule)