Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic -Reply

[Ron Pitt <[e-mail]>]

>>> "C. Adam Stolinski" <[e-mail]> 07/30/98 08:58am
>>>
> 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

I'll second that.

Regards,
Ron Pitt

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
To: C. Adam Stolinski <[e-mail]>; Maria Greene
<[e-mail]>
Cc: IETF UPS-MIB <[e-mail]>
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
>