Anyone there?

maria@xedia.com (Maria Greene) Wed, 29 April 1998 18:28 UTC

Delivery-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:28:29 -0400
Return-Path: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns.cnri.reston.va.us [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id OAA23477 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:28:28 -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 OAA13480 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA09829; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA09820; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xedia.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: madway.xedia.com [198.202.232.199]) id QQenfs08320; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (espanola) by xedia.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27753; Wed, 29 Apr 98 14:14:24 EDT
Received: by (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA20073; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:13:16 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:13:16 -0400
From: maria@xedia.com
Message-Id: <9804291813.AA20073@>
To: ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Anyone there?

Hi, UPSers. It has been suggested that I get involved as co-chair of
this WG to try to get RFC1628 moved along. (Jeff finally half
succeeded in quitting. :)

There hasn't been any real discussion on this list for over a
year. Does anybody care about this MIB? I'm not a UPS developer, nor
do I play one on tv, so I would need real participation from you guys
if this is to get done.

One of our illustrious area directors (Bert Wijnen) has made this
request:

    > So I would want the WG to decide on one of these:
    >  a. Recycle a doc at Proposed (seems there is a list of wanted
    >     changes that would require a recycle at Proposed).
    >  b. Move the doc to Draft (if the changes turn out not to require
    >     a recycle at Proposed). It seems that there are multiple
    >     implementations, not sure yet if they are interoperable. That
    >     would have to be proven in this case.
    >  c. Decide that the current doc is good enough and make it an
    >     informational document.
    > In any event, we cannot leave the RFC1628 lingering at Proposed forever.
    > If options a or b are chosen then I need a new set of milestones too.

I need your opinions on this and any input you have about "wanted
changes". Based on the response, we'll decide where to go from there.

Maria Greene
maria@xedia.com