chantall@upperside.fr

Upper Side
54, rue du Faubourg Saint = Antoine
75012 Paris - FRANCE
Tel: 33 1 53 46 63 80
Fax: 33 1 53 = 46 63=20 85
www.upperside.fr

= ------=_NextPart_000_0133_01C06354.6BB80A80-- From owner-ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com Thu Dec 14 20:11:15 2000 Received: from standards.gadzoox.com (standards.gadzoox.com [216.52.31.24]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA14630 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by standards.gadzoox.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA19038 for ipfc-list; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:35:55 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: standards.gadzoox.com: majordom set sender to owner-ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com using -f Received: from hygro.adsl.duke.edu (root@ietf.207.137.73.149.tx.verio.net [207.137.73.149]) by standards.gadzoox.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA19035 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:35:23 -0800 Received: from hygro.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by hygro.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eBF0i2V01327; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:44:02 -0500 Message-Id: <200012150044.eBF0i2V01327@hygro.adsl.duke.edu> To: mark.carlson@sun.com cc: ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com, Erik Nordmark , muralir@lightsand.com, gavin@gadzoox.com, lhu3@yahoo.com, nordmark@jurassic.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-framework-03.txt (Fwd) In-Reply-To: Message from "Mark A. Carlson" of "Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:40:01 MST." <3A379851.553CDDD7@sun.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:44:02 -0500 From: Thomas Narten Sender: owner-ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com Precedence: bulk One other comment. During the IESG discussions, it was suggested that this document seems more like a guideline for what the WG will do as it develops mibs than as something that needs to be recorded in the permanent records, especially if the mibs themselves don't follow all the guidelines. Is this document more like a set of "scratch notes" than a document that necessarily needs to be published for the historical record? Who will the target audience for this document be if it is published as an RFC? Is it really worth spending WG cycles to clean it up, or should efforts just be focused on the mibs themselves? Would it make sense to step back and consider whether the document even needs to be completed? I'm sure we've all got lots of other things we could be doing ... Just a thought... Thomas From owner-ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com Fri Dec 15 12:53:24 2000 Received: from standards.gadzoox.com (standards.gadzoox.com [216.52.31.24]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA12364 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:53:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by standards.gadzoox.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA19574 for ipfc-list; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:19:09 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: standards.gadzoox.com: majordom set sender to owner-ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com using -f Received: from auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (auemail2.lucent.com [192.11.223.163]) by standards.gadzoox.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA19571 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:18:36 -0800 Received: from auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14426 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:28:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14324 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:28:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:28:16 +0100 Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB0A7AB1A5@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: mark.carlson@sun.com, Thomas Narten Cc: ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com, Erik Nordmark , muralir@lightsand.com, gavin@gadzoox.com, lhu3@yahoo.com, Erik Nordmark Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-framework-03.txt (Fwd) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:28:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com Precedence: bulk I would certainly prefer that this WG focuses on the MIBs than on this "guideline" type of document. As I said before, many of the statements in this doc are things that have been documented elsewhere (like in the SMIv2 docs (RFC2578-2580) and in the SNMP architecture (RFC2571) and related documents). Bert > ---------- > From: Thomas Narten[SMTP:narten@raleigh.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:44 AM > To: mark.carlson@sun.com > Cc: ipfc@standards.gadzoox.com; Erik Nordmark; muralir@lightsand.com; > gavin@gadzoox.com; lhu3@yahoo.com; nordmark@jurassic.eng.sun.com > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-framework-03.txt (Fwd) > > One other comment. During the IESG discussions, it was suggested that > this document seems more like a guideline for what the WG will do as > it develops mibs than as something that needs to be recorded in the > permanent records, especially if the mibs themselves don't follow all > the guidelines. Is this document more like a set of "scratch notes" > than a document that necessarily needs to be published for the > historical record? > > Who will the target audience for this document be if it is published > as an RFC? Is it really worth spending WG cycles to clean it up, or > should efforts just be focused on the mibs themselves? Would it make > sense to step back and consider whether the document even needs to be > completed? I'm sure we've all got lots of other things we could be > doing ... Just a thought... > > Thomas >