RE: [ippm] IPPM MIB (fwd)

["STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Henk and Matt,

In the mail sent in the list you never proposed that the IPPM MIB will be removed from the charter. You said "...In that case, the existing document will be finished and a published as an informational RFC."

I consider that what is happening is against the spirit of a standardization process for the following reasons:

-1- Attendees don't care if a WG MIB is informational or BCP or standard track. Consequently I think that most of them understood that if they were not enough reaction the IPPM MIB will become an informational WG draft. So you should have clearly said to the list that "...In that case, the existing document will be finished and a published as an individual informational RFC.".

-2- Making an implementation is part of the standardization process of the IETF. France Telecom decided to make an implementation to validate the specification after the document became a WG item and after the mail from Andy (19/11/2001) telling both to ippm and rmon lists that he wanted a MIB that exposed aggregated statistics based directly on the IPPM metrics. 

-3- I have taken in account all the requests from other WG. I extracted the IPPM REGISTRY from the IPPM MIB to satisfy the needs of other MIBs. I removed any informational reference to the IPPM MIB in the IPPM REGISTRY to facilitate the evolution of the TPM MIB (which has a normative reference to IPPM REGISTRY). 

-4- Before the last meeting, an expert from another WG proposed to co author the IPPM MIB because the design of IPPM MIB fits specific needs related to scalability and user separation... That should be a good opportunity to complete this IPPM MIB while taking in account the constraints of the integration in routers. He retracted because he heard that the IPPM MIB was kill. So if your decision was taken before the last meeting you should have clearly announced in the list that the IPPM MIB will be removed from the charter if there were not more interest: You should never have said that this WG item will became informational.

So I consider that the IPPM MIB should become an informational WG document as proposed in the ippm list in August and because this WG item was accepted and motivated by both the chairs and the TA. 

Regards
Emile

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)
Envoyé : jeudi 7 octobre 2004 19:59
À : [e-mail]
Cc : Matthew J Zekauskas; Allison Mankin
Objet : [ippm] IPPM MIB (fwd)

IPPM group,

On August 16, we asked the working group for feedback on the question
"what information would you like to see in the management interface of a
network measurement system".  There have been almost no responses to the
list on this question.

We conclude that the members of this WG are, at the moment, not interested
in the development of an IPPM MIB.  As a result, we propose to remove this
work item from the agenda.

We realize that a considerable amount of work has been put into
draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-06.txt. In order to save this work for the
future, we encourage the authors to finish this document, then submit it
as an individual, informational RFC.

The chairs,
Matt & Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: [phone]
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: [phone]
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a room with a window in the corner, I found truth.            (Ian Curtis)

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

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