IETF Logo Mail Archive

Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?

"Michael L. Kornegay" <mlk@bir.com> Wed, 27 January 1993 03:59 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12847; 26 Jan 93 22:59 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12843; 26 Jan 93 22:59 EST
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09352; 26 Jan 93 23:01 EST
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA28131> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Tue, 26 Jan 93 23:01:19 EST
Received: from emory.mathcs.emory.edu by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA28127> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-snmp2 X-snmp2; Tue, 26 Jan 93 23:01:17 EST
Received: from bir.UUCP by emory.mathcs.emory.edu (5.65/Emory_mathcs.3.4.4) via UUCP id AA15432 ; Tue, 26 Jan 93 23:01:14 -0500
Return-Path: bir!mlk@bir.com
Received: by bir.bir.com (uA-1.5v4); Tue, 26 Jan 93 22:58:05 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Michael L. Kornegay" <mlk@bir.com>
To: snmp-sec-dev@tis.com
Subject: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 22:58:05 EST
Cc: snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp@psi.com
Reply-To: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu
Message-Id: <0D15DDF1.omsjq8@bir.bir.com>
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4

> Let me remind everyone that discussion is scheduled to close at the end
> of this week.  Further, Chuck Davin has posted a substantial amount of
> material that has not been significantly discussed.  In the absence of
> discussion I'm interpreting the quiet to be a deafening approval of the
> proposed revised documents that Marshall will be distributing soon.

I feel it is important to make the following comments:

  o Quiet can be "approval" as indicated above, or just frustration with
    the process.  

  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.  

  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".


Summarizing, I feel ok about the SNMPv2 and SNMP Security proposals and look
forward to implementing and using them in the future.  

Its just too bad the process and time pressures allow important ideas to be 
pushed aside (in my view - "squashed").

Just wanted this to be "on the record" and in the archives on these issues.

I felt the cross posting was important, if you want to reply lets keep it
on one list.  How about snmp@psi.com since this is a general snmp issue.

Thanks,

----
mlk@bir.com, mlk@bir.uucp, or bir!mlk (Michael L. Kornegay)

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email