Subject: FW: AToM MIB WG Meeting Minutes

From: "Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:50:46 -0400

Dear all,

Attached in the forwarded email is the minutes of the AToM MIB WG meeting during the 57th IETF meeting. Thanks to Orly for providing the minutes. 

The minutes reflects the discussion and suggestions from the meeting. All decision suggested in the minutes still need consensus from the list. After the meeting, feedback responding to the meeting summary have been raised in the list. In general, I see 
(1) no objection to extending the due dates for the milestones
(2) Request implementation feedback also from other WGs and ATM Forum for RFC2512-2514.
(3) It is premature to decide on when to deprecate any of the non-reported objects.

Given that, here is the proposal for the milestones updates. 

     Oct 03: Report on implementation experience on RFC 2512-2513

     Oct 03: Report on additional implementation experience on RFC 2514-2515

     Done:   Report on implementation experience on RFC 2493

     Oct 03: Report on implementation experience on RFC 2494

     Oct 03: Report on additional implementation experience on RFC 2495-2496

     Jan 04: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2512-2513 to the IESG 
             for consideration of standards track advancement as appropriate 

     Oct 03: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2514-2515 to the IESG 
             for consideration of standards track advancement as appropriate
    
     Done:   Submit any needed revisions of RFC2493 to the IESG for 
             standards track advancement as appropriate
 
     Jan 04: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2494 to the IESG for 
             standards track advancement as appropriate 

     Oct 03: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2495-2496 to the IESG for 
             standards track advancement as appropriate 

     Done:   Submit any needed revisions of RFC2558 to the IESG for 
             standards track advancement as appropriate  

Any comments?

Regards,
Kam

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)  
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:14 PM
> To:	[email-masked]'
> Cc:	'Orly Nicklass'; [email-masked]'
> Subject:	AToM MIB WG Meeting Minutes
> 
> Attached is the minutes of the AToM MIB (atommib) WG meeting in the 57th IETF Vienna Meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> Kam Lam
> atommib co-chair
> >  <<atommib_minutes_57-Vienna.doc>>

---

From: "Faye Ly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:05:07 -0700

Kam,

Great work!  For the updated milestone, please see my comments embedded:

     Oct 03: Report on additional implementation experience on RFC
2514-2515

<FL> Two comments here, one is that if no one has implemented the
objects stated in the meeting minutes, at some point we will have to
remove those objects from the RFC and move on.  The other one is that
the word 'additional' is probably not necessary.  We will collect all
the implementation experience and publish them by Oct 03?  Thanks. -faye

----Original Message-----
From: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:51 AM
To: 'AToM Working Group'
Cc: Faye Ly; 'Erik Nordmark'; 'Thomas Narten'; 'Margaret Wasserman'
Subject: FW: AToM MIB WG Meeting Minutes

Dear all,

Attached in the forwarded email is the minutes of the AToM MIB WG
meeting during the 57th IETF meeting. Thanks to Orly for providing the
minutes. 

The minutes reflects the discussion and suggestions from the meeting.
All decision suggested in the minutes still need consensus from the
list. After the meeting, feedback responding to the meeting summary have
been raised in the list. In general, I see 
(1) no objection to extending the due dates for the milestones
(2) Request implementation feedback also from other WGs and ATM Forum
for RFC2512-2514.
(3) It is premature to decide on when to deprecate any of the
non-reported objects.

     Oct 03: Report on additional implementation experience on RFC
2514-2515

     Oct 03: Report on additional implementation experience on RFC
2495-2496

     Jan 04: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2512-2513 to the IESG 
             for consideration of standards track advancement as
appropriate 

     Oct 03: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2514-2515 to the IESG 
             for consideration of standards track advancement as
appropriate

Any comments?

Regards,
Kam

---

From: "Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:34:48 -0400

Faye,

> ..., at some point we will have to
> remove those objects from the RFC and move on. 

Agree. But we cannot decide on "when" at this moment yet. In October, if we don't receive enough implementation feedback, we may need to further extend the date, e.g., to allow implementation feedback on ATM2 which uses the RFC2514 TCs. 

> the word 'additional' is probably not necessary.

Agree.

Regards,
Kam

> From: Faye Ly [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:05 PM
> To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); AToM Working Group
> Cc: Erik Nordmark; Thomas Narten; Margaret Wasserman
> Subject: RE: AToM MIB WG Meeting Minutes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kam,
>

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:14:28 +0200

> the implementation experience and publish them by Oct 03?  
I guess that instead of "remove from RFC" you probably mean
"derecate" or "obsolete". We never remove objects that were 
specified in an RFC.

Bert

---

From: "Faye Ly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:20:57 -0700

Yes, agreed that was bad wording. -faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:14 PM
To: Faye Ly; Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); AToM Working Group
Cc: Erik Nordmark; Thomas Narten; Margaret Wasserman
Subject: RE: AToM MIB WG Meeting Minutes

Bert