Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-framework-03.txt (Fwd)

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:44:02 -0500

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: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:28:15 +0100

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:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Friday, December 15, 2000 1:44 AM
> To: 	[email-masked]
> Cc: 	[email-masked]; Erik Nordmark; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: 	Re: draft-ietf-ipfc-mib-framework-03.txt (Fwd) 
>