Working Group Status

Dan Romascanu <> Wed, 07 July 1993 19:31 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11629; 7 Jul 93 15:31 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11625; 7 Jul 93 15:31 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA17853; Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:07:05 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 7 Jul 1993 15:07:03 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 AA17839; Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:06:59 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id AA23439 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <>); Wed, 7 Jul 1993 22:06:25 +0300
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03362; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:57:07 IDT
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10205; Wed, 7 Jul 93 11:58:17 IDT
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1993 11:58:17 -0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dan Romascanu <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: 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)
	> --andy;

OK, Bob, here is a strong objection!
It would really be a pitty to abandon the effort, when we are so close to
a workable solution. In fact in my opinion we must only do some cleaning 
and make some small adjustments.
Abandoning now would mean remaining with a bunch of unsolved problems. One
of them is connected to the Repeater ID subject which was left by the the
Repetear MIB WG on the assumption that Chassis MIB will be used to manage
multiple repeaters in the same chassis.
I also strongly object to the No-Meeting Announcement, two days before 
boarding the plane to Amsterdam. I do not know what rules say, but my 
opinion is that the WG should meet in the programmed spot in Amsterdam,
the meeting may be chaired by one of the draft authors: Keith, Pete Wilson,
Dave Arneson. We should make the last corrections, give the absents the 
time to comment and then, a.s.a.p. pass it as a Proposed Standard.

Dan Romascanu, LANNET Data Communications Ltd., Tel Aviv, ISRAEL
Voice: 972-3-6458-414, Fax: 972-3-5447-416