Re: SNMPv2 fasttrack (was Re: Squashing important ideas

Cheryl Krupczak <cheryl@cc.gatech.edu> Wed, 03 February 1993 02:36 UTC

Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Cheryl Krupczak <cheryl@cc.gatech.edu>
Message-Id: <9302030235.AA14409@terminus.cc.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: SNMPv2 fasttrack (was Re: Squashing important ideas
To: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 21:35:50 -0500
Cc: snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com
In-Reply-To: <0D15DDF1.p8lu9j@bir.bir.com>; from "Michael L. Kornegay" at Feb 2, 93 4:54 pm

>
>The SMP group developing a proposal on their own with or without direction
>of the IETF is not bad!  (I believe they had its blessing?)  It was also an
>excellent proposal.  The process would have taken forever if they had not
>made their contribution.

Oh yes!  I agree!  I didn't mean to give an impression to the contrary.
I think the SMP authors did us all a great service by laying the foundation.
Thanks again, guys.


>
>What is bad is that when a working group was formed, that the IETF community
>did not give adequate consideration to many important ideas, and treated the
>proposal as gospel.

I agree with this part too. :-(

>
>As far as time, many of you consider the process to have started at the
>Boston IETF.  I consider the process of adopting the SMP as SNMPv2 began
>in November.  Note that the SNMPv2 working group existed <= 2 months.  Quite
>a fast track if you ask me.
>
>----
>mlk@bir.com, mlk@bir.uucp, or bir!mlk (Michael L. Kornegay)
>

	Cheryl
		cheryl@cc.gatech.edu

--

Re: SNMPv2 fasttrack (was Re: Squashing important… Cheryl Krupczak