Re: abandoning ike-monitor-mib, isakmp-di-mon-mib, and monitor-mib?

["C. M. Heard" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, John Shriver wrote:
> OK, let's try and sort out the MIB issues one decision at a
> time.  The first thing is to decide if we want to abandon the
> original set of MIBs:
> 
>    draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-monitor-mib-04.txt,
>    draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-di-mon-mib-05.txt, and
>    draft-ietf-ipsec-monitor-mib-06.txt

[ ... list of problems snipped ... ]

> So, given this set of considerable problems, is there anyone who
> wants these MIBs to track the IPsec standards going forwards,
> and can find resources to update them and implement them?
> 
> If nobody wants to do this, will we take the lack of any dissent
> on their death as "consensus" per the "IETF Process"?
> 
> I *NEED* to know this, because there are a number of
> TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS in the doi-tc-mib that were only used by
> these three MIBs, and are not used by the IPsec flow MIB, or by
> the Policy MIB.  Since it looks like the doi-tc-mib will NOT be
> maintained by the IANA (no enumerations), the TC's have to be
> used in some MIB to progress through the standards process, so
> we can't stock up on "spare" TCs for possible future needs.

It's been a week, and not even one word has been uttered on the WG
mailing list.  I'm reminded of the closing words in Barbara Fraser's
message of 6 June asking us to get this stuff done:

% I feel like we're living in Ground Day with these MIB docs. We
% keep living the same thing over and over. Let's please get to
% the end :-)

I think that the silence very eloquently states that there is no
further interest in these MIB modules.  In the interest of allowing
John to get on with the edits to the doi-tc MIB, will the chairs
please make a ruling that these MIB modules are abandoned owing to
lack of WG interest?

Thanks,

Mike Heard