IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Anyone there?

Chris Herzog <zog@stg.com> Wed, 29 April 1998 19:20 UTC

Delivery-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:20:31 -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 PAA25332 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:20:30 -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 PAA13696 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:22:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA13416; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:10:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mcbain.stg.com (mcbain.stg.com [38.252.21.13]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA13407; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:10:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from stg.com by mcbain.stg.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA03259; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:09:50 -0500
Message-ID: <35477AFE.D7BCACC9@stg.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:09:50 -0500
From: Chris Herzog <zog@stg.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Maria Greene <maria@xedia.com>
CC: ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Anyone there?
References: <9804291813.AA20073@>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Maria Greene wrote:

> 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).

There was some pretty hot and heavy quite some time back (probably two years
ago?) regarding adding support for receptacle control but I don't think any
concensus was actually reached.  Agreeing on a next set of revisions could be
bloody...


>     >  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.

Same sort of issues as with a. I'd guess


>     >  c. Decide that the current doc is good enough and make it an
>     >     informational document.

>From my experience in developing several UPS MIB implementations, I'd have to
say that I haven't heard any real feedback from my UPS OEM customers in regards
to making significant additions or changes to 1628 functionality.

This would seem to suggest that moving to Informational is the correct choice.




-- 

Chris Herzog			Software Technologies Group, Inc.
mailto:zog@stg.com		http://www.stg.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email