Subject: RE: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description Changes (Part II)

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:31:28 -0500

hi

Well, as I said, I can't think of a design pattern to make then
conditionally mandatory. Personally, I'd love to see them mandatory, but I
think we would need strong consensus to make that change at this point.

Do we have it?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 4:04 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] entstate-651 Notification Description Changes (Part
II)

On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:04:24AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

> Missed part of this ....
> 
> <Juergen>
> p) The notification are optional. Should there be any further 
> guideline under which conditions implementations should support them?
> </Juergen>
> 
> I don't think so. They probably should have been mandatory but 
> optional was more a political decision. I think it is an implement 
> them if you find them useful sort of thing rather than a design 
> pattern that implementations could test against.

I dislike totally optional notifications in standards. Either these
notifications are generally useful or they are useful in specific situations
which then need to be spelled out or they are not useful 
at all. How do I practically find out whether a given box supports these
notifications? Is the answer that I have to physically remove decives are
beg the vendor to give me a suitable agent capabilities statements? Sounds
all not very practical from a network management application writer point of
view...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:12:29 +0100

> think we would need strong consensus to make that change at this point.

What were the arguments against making these mandatory? Generally too
hard to detect such state changes? Something else?

/js

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:34:47 -0500

Juergen and Sharon,

I don't personally care whether the Entity State notifications are 
optional or mandatory, but I do have a concern about this 
discussion...

This document has been through two or three WG LCs already, and now 
we seem to be discussing changes to features of the MIB that have 
been constant since the beginning.  It seems like there are always 6 
or more outstanding issues with this document.  We fix the current 
issues, and then new issues are raised during the LC that is intended 
to check the resolutions of the previous issues.

  Where does this stop?  At what point can we pull the plug on this 
discussion and declare the document "good enough"?  Juergen, do you 
have any blocking objections to the publication of this document at 
this point?  Or just suggestions for improvement?

Personally, I think that this constant editing is a symptom of the 
fact that there is no driving force for the publication of this 
document.  Do we actually care about getting this document published? 
If so, let's reach closure on the existing issues and publish it.  If 
not, let's stop thrashing...

Margaret

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:45:36 +0100

> not, let's stop thrashing...

Margaret, there is no constant editing. The problem are the turn around
cycles. If it takes many weeks to follow up on last call comments, then
there is a problem with the management of this WG. You reactions indicate 
that you do not really want any contribution to this WG and that you do
not really care about the documents and the document quality. If that is
indeed the case, then there is probably no point to continue.

/js

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:45:22 -0500

Hi Juergen,

>that you do not really want any contribution to this WG

It is true that I do not want any new contributions to the WG, 
because we are supposed to be finishing our work and shutting down. 
I think that I've made it quite clear (on several occasions) that I 
would prefer to step down as chair of this WG, but (to my knowledge, 
anyway), no one has volunteered to replace me.  I am not interested 
in taking on new work that will extend the life of the WG, because I 
don't want to keep running it.  There is no great mystery here...

>  and that you do
>not really care about the documents and the document quality.

I actually do care about the Entity MIB.  I designed it into Wind 
River's virtual router solution and had someone implement it there. 
I found it very useful, and I was quite enthusiastic for a time about 
promoting this MIB to Draft Standard.  I was sorry to see the WG 
choose otherwise, but did support the consensus of the WG to re-cycle 
at proposed rather than remove the alias tables.  Now, people want to 
add additional objects,...  and so on, and so on...

I don't have any problem with the Entity State MIB, except for the 
fact that we don't seem to be able to finish it.  We keep moving (in 
occasional bursts), but I am not sure that we are getting any closer 
to the end.  Are you?  Do you think that the MIB is in substantially 
better shape today than it was a year ago?

Margaret

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:38:19 +0100

> don't want to keep running it.  There is no great mystery here...

The point with the notifications which triggered this thread is that 
we are discussion last call comments that I have originally posted on 
9 Jul 2003 and reposted on 29 Sep 2004. I don't think the last call 
comments can be considered a new contribution and I don't want to feel 
guilty of having done a detailed last call review. Note that I am fine 
to accept a resolution that the unconditional optional notification is 
indeed what the WG wants and then this issue is closed. What we lack 
is simply an efficient process to resolve issues raised during last
call.
 
> better shape today than it was a year ago?

I believe this is primarily a matter of turn around times. Perhaps
you can check with Sharon whether she can allocate some more time
slots to finalize the Entity State MIB. When will the next revised
version of the document be posted? Lets work on the document rather
than this meta discussion which by itself does not move anything
forward.

/js

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:02:44 -0500

>than this meta discussion which by itself does not move anything

I agree that the meta-discussion isn't helping,a nd thanks for 
suggesting that we move back to discussing the document...

Sharon has stated that she should have more time to spend on this 
document between now and the next IETF meeting, so I am hopeful that 
we can get the issues resolved and submit it to the IESG.

Sharon,  could you post a summary of the remaining open issues with 
your proposals for resolution, so that we can see if there is WG 
agreement?

Perhaps we can attempt to reach consensus that these are the only 
remaining issues and that we will submit the document to the IESG 
once they are resolved?

Thanks,
Margaret