RE: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?

["David T. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

HI,

Dave has new job at Trapeze Networks, a wireless startup. Very busy.
Good and Bad. Dave needs to make time to crank out short I-D.

Sorry,
/david t. perkins

At 11:29 AM 7/19/2004 -0700, Faye Ly wrote:
>David,
>
>I am not sure if any progress needs to be made per Kaj's email on 6/17:
>
>>Dan, thanks for your review offer!
>>My understanding of the status and issues is the following:
>>1. document title is too vague
>>      Can be fixed in several ways; several alternatives
>>       were posted; seems fixable.
>>2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement
>>      Dave P. was going to write a URN based proposal;
>>      once there's consensus it can easily be inserted
>>3. acceptance as work item
>>      There have been several expressions of support, but not yet
>>      formal acceptance as a work item, and related WG charter
>>      extension
>
>Given that Dave is the one that raised issue for 2 and have not provided
>any proposal yet.  I think we can easily solve 1 and move this draft
>forward.  Dave??
>
>-faye
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David B Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:10 AM
>To: Faye Ly; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'Margaret Wasserman';
>[e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?
>
>
>Hi,
>
>In Minneapolis, it was decided that this could not become a WG item
>unless progress was made on existing WG items. Are we ready to move the
>State mib forward, or should we drop it? What remains to be done before
>submitting this to the IESG?
>
>If work has not progressed, then the State MIB should be killed, as per
>agreement reached in Minneapolis (is anybody implementing this mib?). 
>
>If the WG does still want the State mib to advance, then maybe the WG
>should meet and hammer out the final draft so it can stop being a
>bottleneck. Not having a meeting doesn't help get the work done.
>
>I support accepting the manufacturing date mib as a WG item as well,
>after resolving the State MIB progress, and the WG could discuss any
>needed changes to the details of this mib to make it acceptable as a WG
>item if there was a WG meeting.
>
>An interim meeting might be better for focused work, but I suspect that
>without a regular meeting an interim meeting won't be permitted.
>
>So I recommend that there be a **working** group meeting in San Diego to
>make some real progress on these two mibs. 
>
>dbh
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of Faye Ly
>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:33 PM
>To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Margaret Wasserman; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?
>
>I concur.  I think we should move this MIB forward or get it done. -faye
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:10 AM
>To: Margaret Wasserman; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?
>
>
>Margaret,
>
>I do not have a strong objection to Entity MIB WG not meeting in San
>Diego.
>
>I would like however to see the 'Entity MIB Extensions for manufacturing
>date and physical module identification' a.k.a 'Kaj's draft' being
>continued and worked out as a standards track document. What are the
>reasons that you are not prepared to take this charter item, which seems
>to have received a fair amount of interest? I believe this is relative
>small amount of work, and possibly Kaj can complete it in one or two
>rounds if we do not philosophize too much around it. I volunteered to be
>a reviewer. There may be no need for meetings. 
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On 
>> Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman
>> Sent: 19 July, 2004 7:10 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> Just so that everyone knows, I have _not_ requested an Entity MIB 
>> meeting for San Diego.  If you have any strong objection to this 
>> decision, please let me know before 5pm EST today.
>> 
>> We do need to finish the Entity State MIB and get it submitted to the 
>> IESG, but I don't think that the remaining issues justify a 
>> face-to-face meeting.
>> 
>> I also support the idea that Kaj Tesink's draft should be completed 
>> and published, but it is not in-charter for this group and I am not 
>> prepared to take on new charter items at this time.  Folks who want to
>
>> work on this should talk to Kaj and/or Bert Wijnen and decide how to 
>> move it forward.  Perhaps an individual submission would make the most
>
>> sense given that it is a short/simple MIB?
>> 
>> Margaret
>> 
>> 
>> At 3:24 PM -0400 6/17/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> >Hi All,
>> >
>> >We should decide soon whether or not the Entity MIB WG will meet in 
>> >San Diego.  Thoughts?
>> >
>> >If we do meet, what are the likely agenda items?
>> >
>> >Margaret
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Entmib mailing list
>> >[e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Entmib mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib 


_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib