Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?
Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Wed, 27 January 1993 06:27 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13818; 27 Jan 93 1:27 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13814; 27 Jan 93 1:27 EST
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13804; 27 Jan 93 1:29 EST
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA09034> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Wed, 27 Jan 93 01:29:20 EST
Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us (ppp.dbc.mtview.ca.us) by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA09014> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-snmp2 X-snmp2; Wed, 27 Jan 93 01:29:15 EST
Received: from localhost by dbc.mtview.ca.us (5.65/3.1.090690) id AA18504; Tue, 26 Jan 93 22:27:34 -0800
To: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu
Cc: snmp-sec-dev@tis.com, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp@psi.com
Reply-To: snmp-sec@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Subject: Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:58:05 EST." <0D15DDF1.omsjq8@bir.bir.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:26:54 -0800
Message-Id: <18502.728116014@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
For a moment, consider an alternate perspective. At some point you just have to ask yourself "how much discussion is enough". Certainly we could have an open-ended process that continually refined SNMPv2 until it was all things for all people. However, experience shows that this does not produce useful technology. The original call for proposals went out in March of last year. For a six month period, people had a chance to put something together. There have been repeated opportunities for people to formulate proposals, modifications, etc. Some of this input has been productive. Some has not. The moral of the story is that talk is cheap, but workable technology is not. With respect to the current situation, the process and time pressures have not squashed Chuck's proposals. They have been on the table for over a month. The problem is that most people can not even understand his proposals (and I wonder how many could even begin to implement them). I do understand them and I will tell you that from my admittedly biased--yet informed--position, they have little chance of resulting in fielded, interoperable implementations. I've already explained why I think Chuck is engaging in this disruptive behavior, and you might disagree with my analysis. However, it is a plain fact that his proposal has no constituency, nor does it have the force of interoperable implementation behind them. As such, the resolution of a situation is a foregone conclusion. /mtr
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … Marshall Rose
- Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus … Cheryl Krupczak