Re: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description Changes (Part II)

Margaret Wasserman <> Mon, 20 December 2004 17:52 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19308 for <>; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:52:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CgRgK-00055B-0k; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:50:52 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CgRbA-0004Mm-Dx for; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:45:32 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18778 for <>; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:45:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CgRkQ-0006zm-40 for; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:55:09 -0500
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 249344; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:38:21 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0620071ebdecbdfd18d4@[]>
In-Reply-To: <20041220134536.GA7717@james>
References: <> <20041217131229.GB3523@james> <p06200716bdec84175060@[]> <20041220134536.GA7717@james>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:45:22 -0500
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description Changes (Part II)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Hi Juergen,

>On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:34:47AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>Margaret, there is no constant editing. The problem are the turn around
>cycles. If it takes many weeks to follow up on last call comments, then
>there is a problem with the management of this WG. You reactions indicate
>that you do not really want any contribution to this WG

It is true that I do not want any new contributions to the WG, 
because we are supposed to be finishing our work and shutting down. 
I think that I've made it quite clear (on several occasions) that I 
would prefer to step down as chair of this WG, but (to my knowledge, 
anyway), no one has volunteered to replace me.  I am not interested 
in taking on new work that will extend the life of the WG, because I 
don't want to keep running it.  There is no great mystery here...

>  and that you do
>not really care about the documents and the document quality.

I actually do care about the Entity MIB.  I designed it into Wind 
River's virtual router solution and had someone implement it there. 
I found it very useful, and I was quite enthusiastic for a time about 
promoting this MIB to Draft Standard.  I was sorry to see the WG 
choose otherwise, but did support the consensus of the WG to re-cycle 
at proposed rather than remove the alias tables.  Now, people want to 
add additional objects,...  and so on, and so on...

I don't have any problem with the Entity State MIB, except for the 
fact that we don't seem to be able to finish it.  We keep moving (in 
occasional bursts), but I am not sure that we are getting any closer 
to the end.  Are you?  Do you think that the MIB is in substantially 
better shape today than it was a year ago?


Entmib mailing list