Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:12 -0500

Hi Dan,
 
Just a comment. At the hubmib interim meeting coresident at the
Vancouver IEEE meeting, you seemed pretty insistent that the discussion
be brought into the IETF meeting, and not just done by the editors at
interim meetings coexistent with IEEE meetings. If the session will be
cancelled in Seoul, how will you proceed regarding future interim
meetings?
 
if you are getting more involvement from IEEE personnel than IETF
personnel, maybe the mib work should be moved into the IEEE and the
Hubmib WG closed? As you know, that is the emerging approach being taken
for the Bridgemib WG mibs.
 
Just a thought,
dbh

  _____  

	From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:36 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Hubmib] Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?

	I received in the last couple of days notifications from the
editors of two of the three documents (generic EFM MIB, and EFM Cu MIB)
that they cannot make it to Seoul for the WG meeting. As it looks like
they cannot get somebody else to properly represent their work in the
meeting, I am inclined to suggest that our meeting in Seoul be
cancelled. This is not yet a final announcement, please respond whether
you agree or not with canceling the meeting. If you think that we should
meet, please let me know how you suggest to cover the agenda items. 

	I frankly am concerned with the low level of technical traffic
on the list lately. With the first round of WG drafts submitted, I was
expecting more feedback and public review. I know that the IEEE drafts
are stabilizing as result of the sponsor ballot comments, and I know
that there are quite a lot of consistent changes the management
sections, specifically in Clause 30 affecting this work. The discussions
on MIB-related issues must be conducted on the hubmib WG list. Please
remember that in the IETF work the WG list is the main media for work
and communication, ensuring the fair and accessible change of views
specific to the IETF process. FYI, if you have concerns about spam
traffic - this list is manually administered, and as far as I know no
spam traffic made it to the list in the last few years.

	Regards,

	Dan

---

From: "Lior Khermosh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:14:27 +0200

Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?Hi David,
Just a comment on your comment. Without referring to the question where the
MIBs should be I would just like to note, as the editor of the EPON MIB,
that I have been receiving in the last few weeks comments about the
documents. Obviously the trigger for that is the coming Plenary meeting.
However I do accept Dan's comment regarding to reflector's traffic. I will
try to bounce any such activity in the future in the reflector since
probably one comment can be an opening for a lot of questions from other
people. I can not force people to CC the reflector but I will ask them to do
so and bounce the comment changes in a note.

Lior Khermosh

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Harrington, David
  Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:45 PM
  To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?

  Hi Dan,

  Just a comment. At the hubmib interim meeting coresident at the Vancouver
IEEE meeting, you seemed pretty insistent that the discussion be brought
into the IETF meeting, and not just done by the editors at interim meetings
coexistent with IEEE meetings. If the session will be cancelled in Seoul,
how will you proceed regarding future interim meetings?

  if you are getting more involvement from IEEE personnel than IETF
personnel, maybe the mib work should be moved into the IEEE and the Hubmib
WG closed? As you know, that is the emerging approach being taken for the
Bridgemib WG mibs.

  Just a thought,
  dbh

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
    Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:36 AM
    To: [email-masked]
    Cc: [email-masked]
    Subject: [Hubmib] Canceling the WG Meeting in Seoul?

    I received in the last couple of days notifications from the editors of
two of the three documents (generic EFM MIB, and EFM Cu MIB) that they
cannot make it to Seoul for the WG meeting. As it looks like they cannot get
somebody else to properly represent their work in the meeting, I am inclined
to suggest that our meeting in Seoul be cancelled. This is not yet a final
announcement, please respond whether you agree or not with canceling the
meeting. If you think that we should meet, please let me know how you
suggest to cover the agenda items.

    I frankly am concerned with the low level of technical traffic on the
list lately. With the first round of WG drafts submitted, I was expecting
more feedback and public review. I know that the IEEE drafts are stabilizing
as result of the sponsor ballot comments, and I know that there are quite a
lot of consistent changes the management sections, specifically in Clause 30
affecting this work. The discussions on MIB-related issues must be conducted
on the hubmib WG list. Please remember that in the IETF work the WG list is
the main media for work and communication, ensuring the fair and accessible
change of views specific to the IETF process. FYI, if you have concerns
about spam traffic - this list is manually administered, and as far as I
know no spam traffic made it to the list in the last few years.

    Regards,

    Dan

---

From: "Lior Khermosh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:14:27 +0200

Lior Khermosh

  -----Original Message-----

  Hi Dan,

  Just a thought,
  dbh

    Regards,

    Dan