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

I strongly support Sharon's statement about the need seeing this document put on the standards track. 

I also am in favor of the fast track process that Sharon is suggesting. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: entmib-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:entmib-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: 20 December, 2004 4:15 PM
> To: entmib@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description 
> Changes (Part II)
> 
> 
> hi
> 
> There is a strong need for this MIB. Turn around times are 
> slow since this
> working group hasn't responded well historically to trying to 
> close issues
> quickly. 
> 
> We have a number of low-risk changes proposed. I suggest we 
> make those, keep
> the notifications as they are and then proceed to forward 
> things up to the
> IESG (without calling YAWLC (yet another working group last call)).
> 
> Sharon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 8:35 AM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]
> Cc: entmib@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description 
> Changes (Part
> II)
> 
> 
> 
> Juergen and Sharon,
> 
> I don't personally care whether the Entity State notifications are 
> optional or mandatory, but I do have a concern about this 
> discussion...
> 
> This document has been through two or three WG LCs already, and now 
> we seem to be discussing changes to features of the MIB that have 
> been constant since the beginning.  It seems like there are always 6 
> or more outstanding issues with this document.  We fix the current 
> issues, and then new issues are raised during the LC that is intended 
> to check the resolutions of the previous issues.
> 
>   Where does this stop?  At what point can we pull the plug on this 
> discussion and declare the document "good enough"?  Juergen, do you 
> have any blocking objections to the publication of this document at 
> this point?  Or just suggestions for improvement?
> 
> Personally, I think that this constant editing is a symptom of the 
> fact that there is no driving force for the publication of this 
> document.  Do we actually care about getting this document published? 
> If so, let's reach closure on the existing issues and publish it.  If 
> not, let's stop thrashing...
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> >On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 07:31:28AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> >
> >>  Well, as I said, I can't think of a design pattern to make then  
> >> conditionally mandatory. Personally, I'd love to see them 
> mandatory, 
> >> but I  think we would need strong consensus to make that change at 
> >> this point.
> >
> >What were the arguments against making these mandatory? 
> Generally too 
> >hard to detect such state changes? Something else?
> >
> >/js
> >
> >--
> >Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International 
> University Bremen
> ><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 
> >Bremen, Germany
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Entmib mailing list
> >Entmib@ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> Entmib@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
> 

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
Entmib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib