Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?
Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com> Wed, 27 January 1993 16:18 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05941;
27 Jan 93 11:18 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05937;
27 Jan 93 11:18 EST
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14700;
27 Jan 93 11:20 EST
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA14267> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:20:30 EST
Received: from xap.xyplex.com by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA14247> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-snmp2 X-snmp2;
Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:20:23 EST
Received: by xap.xyplex.com id <AA21577@xap.xyplex.com>;
Wed, 27 Jan 93 14:22:55 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 14:22:55 -0500
Message-Id: <9301271922.AA21577@xap.xyplex.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Stewart <rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com>
To: snmp-sec-dev@tis.com, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Michael L. Kornegay's message of Tue,
26 Jan 93 22:58:05 EST <0D15DDF1.omsjq8@bir.bir.com>
Subject: Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?
The importance of an idea is often an issue of debate in itself. This is not to say what is important, but to say that an assertion of importance, or insignificance, is not sufficient. > o Quiet can be "approval" as indicated above, or just frustration with > the process. True. But if you do not speak up, you are guaranteed that your opinion will not be considered, whether the issue is the process itself or the conclusions. > o Chuck's proposals about time/space vs SMP time/space would/should have > got more discussion if we were not in such a hurry. Belittling and/or > ignoring his proposals have "squashed" them. I don't agree. If people believe something is important, they will find time to discuss it, or at least to say something. The proposals have been ignored by the community at large, not by the vocal few who have disagreed with them. The proposals have not be squashed. They have not found supporters. > o Me and others have had the same problem with the SNMPv2 working group > squashing "manager issues", a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR SNMP! I tried > to build interest in this with a group of people via private email (out- > side the snmp2 list), but they were all too tired of being "squashed". The hardest part of engineering is knowing when one more important issue is one issue too many and will result in no product at all. Many of the people who fought off "manager issues" are actually quite interested in those issues but did not believe that their time for consideration had come. I am one of those. Try building interest in manager issues as soon as we have SNMPv2 put to bed. I believe you'll find lots of participants then. >Summarizing, I feel ok about the SNMPv2 and SNMP Security proposals and look >forward to implementing and using them in the future. Thank you very much for saying that. I know that the process was sometimes brutal, and feelings were heavily bruised. Nevertheless, I've continued to hope for a positive outcome. Bob
- Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus comi… Michael L. Kornegay
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … Marshall Rose
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … Bob Stewart
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … James R. (Chuck) Davin
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … Cheryl Krupczak
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … Fred Baker
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … Bob Stewart