Subject: snmpconf non-volatile storage

From: Jeff Case <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:17:21 -0400 (EDT)

it seems to me that the discussion has wandered far from the topic of
issue #9 and is now exploring problems that are far more general than
the topic at hand

while these discussions may be interesting, it seems to me to lead us
to a choice
	a)  hold the pm mib for a general solution to be developed either
		elsewhere or developed by this group and exported elsewhere

	b)  go with something now that may or may not be compatible with
		a future general solution that may or may not be developed
		someday

it is my opinion that we should not be considering (a) and that mostly the
discussion related to the general solution is merely a distraction from
what we should be doing, which is getting done, i.e., (b)

having discussed the general problem a bit, which helps us understand the
more general issuex, could we now move the discussion to be a bit more
narrow and focus on closure?

perhaps this group, or another group, when properly chartered to do so,
can later work on the general problem if there is agreement that there is
a problem and that it can be solved

we need to finish and expanding scope is the enemy of completion

best regards,
jdc

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:54:03 -0400

> we need to finish and expanding scope is the enemy of completion

I agree. The general discussion can be moved to the [email-masked] mailing 
list as previously suggested.

Lets focus on closure.

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     [email-masked]
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/