Subject: RE: [Disman] Draft Response to Liaison from ITU-T SG 4 on Alarm M IB

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:41:39 -0400

Hi

I've divided this up into Liaison content and Liaison Process

1) Content

Sharon previously said:

"Thank you for the interest in the Alarm MIB. The Distributed 
 Management
(disman) working group hopes to advance the current I-D to Proposed
 Standard, with minimal editorial changes. In the future, if the working
group is chartered with an Alarm MIB version 2, we will be interested in
 cooperating with you to ensure your requirements are considered."

Randy said:

"I'd like to make it clear that (as far as I know) we've addressed all their
comments.  Regarding possible future work, I'd prefer a broader statement.
How about "We welcome your input on any disman work items, including
discussions of possible future work"?"

Sharon today says-> Actually, we sent a previous, informal, liaison to
indicate we addressed there concerns. This is in response to a subsequent
liaison where they suggested enhancements for a future version of the Alarm
MIB.  See slide 5 of
	http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/slides/disman-2/index.html

Randy also said:

"Let's use http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt
as our guide for form and process, and inform its authors if we run into any
problems.  So, let's at least include the necessary boilerplate items."

Kam said:

"Also inform SG4 about the current status of the I-D and provide the URL of
the latest version."

So, how about:

"
From: IETF Disman Working Group
To: ITU-T Study Group 4 - Q12/4, Q17/4, Q19/4
Title: Response to Liaison on Alarm MIB
Response Contact: Randy Presuhn
Technical Contact: [email-masked]
Purpose: In Replay to Liaison

Thank you for the interest in the Alarm MIB. The latest version is currently
completed Area Director Review and can be found at
	
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

The Distributed Management (disman) working group hopes to advance the
current I-D to Proposed Standard, with minimal editorial changes. In the
future, if the working group is chartered with an Alarm MIB version 2, we
will be interested in cooperating with you to ensure your requirements are
considered."

2) Process
Randy said:

"Let's see how
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt
works."

There is discussion about a web page that I can't find. Any Ideas?

Sharon

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:51:31 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:41 AM
> Subject: RE: [Disman] Draft Response to Liaison from ITU-T SG 4 on Alarm MIB
...
> completed Area Director Review and can be found at

"completed" -> "under"

> current I-D to Proposed Standard, with minimal editorial changes. In the

It's not clear to me whether "editorial" is too strong.  To avoid misleading
anyone, let's remove "editorial" or wait til we've finished the review cycle.

> There is discussion about a web page that I can't find. Any Ideas?
...

The automation the i-d talks about isn't in place, as far as I know,
but it wouldn't hurt to ask the i-d authors.
My intent was that we try to follow the workflow outlined there, so
that all the right people are involved in the right sequence, and so
that we can provide the i-d authors with useful feedback.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:51:31 -0700

Hi -

...

"completed" -> "under"

...

Randy