Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

"C. Adam Stolinski" <astolinski@worldnet.att.net> Thu, 30 July 1998 16:09 UTC

Delivery-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:09:32 -0400
Return-Path: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id MAA00697 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:09:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id MAA23057 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA26925; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA26917; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:59:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 367140823worldnet.att.net ([12.72.33.145]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP id <19980730155840.FZLQ5585@367140823worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:58:40 +0000
Reply-To: "C. Adam Stolinski" <astolinski@worldnet.att.net>
From: "C. Adam Stolinski" <astolinski@worldnet.att.net>
To: Maria Greene <maria@xedia.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
Cc: IETF UPS-MIB <ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:58:27 -0700
Message-ID: <01bdbbd2$e3ec91a0$0d23480c@367140823worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3

I had no idea that the IETF had become another "Alice in Wonderland"
spec group!

Is it about standards for implementation - or about busying ourselves
with "workgroups"???

RFC 1628 works, is implemented by the entire UPS industry, and nobody
feels that it needs any changes.  So, the IETF position is lets make it
obsolete, because there is no activity in the WG?????

There is a difference between "work" and "makework".

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Regards,
Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
To: C. Adam Stolinski <astolinski@worldnet.att.net>; Maria Greene
<maria@xedia.com>
Cc: IETF UPS-MIB <ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic


>The formalist AD steps in to explain IETF procedures
>
>In order for a document to progress to Draft Standard (the next step
for
>the UPS MIB), the IETF rules (RFC 2026) require:
>
>- Documentation that all objects have in fact been implemented by
>  at least 2 independent implementations (this is to verify that the
>  specs are clear enough to implement from)
>
>- WG consensus that there are no objects that need to have their
>  definitions updated, or should be deprecated or declared obsolete
>  (MIB rules say you can't delete things, only make them obsolete)
>  Or a new draft that has those changes, if the WG deems it required.
>  (New functionality needs to be a separate document)
>
>This translates to "the WG must do work".
>If nobody is willing to spend time and effort in doing this, there
>is probably no reason to keep the spec on the IETF Standards Track.
>
>
>
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>IETF Area Director, Operations and Management
>