Subject: RE: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:06:15 +0200

> Okay.
> 
> Having seen enough interest today to think that a meeting in San 
> Diego is warranted, I will schedule one.
> 
> I'll ask for an hour, and our agenda items will be:
> 
> - Wrapping up the Entity State MIB -- Sharon
>        GOALS:  Close all open issues and ship it!
> 
> - Status of the "Definitions of Supplemental Entity Managed 
>   Objects" draft
>        GOALS:  Technical review & decision about how/if to 
>                move forward
> 

I'd reather change "Technical review" into something aka "Come to 
resolution about the one oustanding issue."

This debate has been going on for I don't know how long now.

We better decide which solution we want.

I would URGE everyone who has comments/concerns about a fix/resolution of
the issue to SEND their proposal to the mailing list (well) BEFORE the
SanDiego meeting, so we can discuss it and try to come to consensus.

Bert

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:32:33 -0400

>This debate has been going on for I don't know how long now.

I agree, and your suggestion sounds reasonable to me.

If we can close on the one issue with the draft, Dan Romascanu (who 
has already volunteered) can do a thorough review and we can get this 
document published as a sponsored individual submission without the 
need for a WG re-charter, etc.  It's only a couple of objects, after 
all!

>SanDiego meeting, so we can discuss it and try to come to consensus.

I'll make the same plea for any remaining issues with the Entity 
State MIB.  Personally, I hope that we will leave San Diego with 
either:

     (1) A set of well-defined edits that are required before we send 
the Entity State MIB to the IESG.

OR

     (2) A decision not to proceed with the Entity State MIB at all.

We've spent _far_ to long nibbling at this MIB, and we should either 
ship it or kill it, IMO.

As I think I've said on this list before, it is heavily frowned upon 
for an IESG member to chair a regular WG, and I only continued as 
chair because we were supposed to finish in a few months.  That was 
over a year ago!  No one else has volunteered to run the group, and 
(as a working group, not as individual people) I think we are 
suffering classic signs of having outlived our own usefulness.  So 
let's finish up (one way or the other) and close down.

Thanks,
Margaret