Re: [manet] REPORT-MIB - a question and an offer of help to pull it across the finishing line (UNCLASSIFIED)

Bob,

Thank you for the background and guidance - and for confirming my sentiment that with an energetic editorial effort, this document could be really close to a finishing line.

I actually am also (unsurprisingly) well aligned with the two steps you outline below. We need a stable spec, and then some experience - and then fold those together with wherever the rest of the IETF is once we've gotten enough experience to have an informed opinion on what should become standard.

So, I think that 1) is a good - and, even, necessary - stepping sone towards 1. So let's do it?

Thomas

ps: sad to hear that you won't be in London. Might you have time to a teleconf at some point about this?

> On 27 févr. 2014, at 22:08, "Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
> 
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
> 
> 
> Thomas said:
> "So, while I am very interested in background and explanations, they're always educational, I'd submit that we should not drag our feet on this any longer: revive the document, do the reviews and re-spins, WGLC it and then get it off to Adrian for further processing. Having recently re-read it, my guestimate is that with a bit of concentrated effort, it shouldn't necessitate many months to see it through.
> 
> As I said, I'm willing to chip in and help out and do my part to make it go forward."
> 
> 
> Two potential ways to proceed:
> 
> 1) The last posted draft of the REPORT-MIB gave a simple bucket style approach to reporting remotely collected measurements back to a centralized manager.  It is straight forward and as Thomas said with some concentrated effort could finish up rather quickly with an energetic editor.  As an experimental RFC this could provide a useful experimental capability to play with and decide how best to improve upon for later efforts. 
> 
> 2) A longer term effort would be to rewrite it in the context of the DISMAN set of MIBs.  But this would take more time and more discussions.  
> 
> My feeling is that 2) is the best long term approach, but that 1) would provide a more immediate capability to experiment with.
> 
> Thanks,  Bob
> 
> 
> 
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet