Subject: snmpconfig Re: Work on the Diff Serv Policy MIB

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 00 11:44:07 CET

Ref:  Your note of Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:06:48 -0800

Subject: Re:   snmpconfig Re: Work on the Diff Serv Policy MIB

Andrew, new (planned) work and WGs are normally something that the
IESG decides upon in collaboration with IAB and potential WG chairs
for the new WG.
We basically have two cycles. In the first cycle we "approve/agree"
to the new work in the IESG. It then gets posted to new-work and
IETF-announce mailing lists. This is to sollicit general public and
other standards bodies to let us know if they see any trouble with
the proposed work. Normal review time is one week.
If we do not get any comments, then in the seconf cycle we (IESG)
"approove/agree" the new work and Steve announces that the WG has
been formed.

We did go through that process, and the initial announce was on
24 march. So I agree that the final announce was immediately after
the timeout.. but then, we did not get any feedback that there
would be any problem.

W.r.t. to this WG, you also knew (or could have known) that it was
coming, because I did sort of pre-announce our IESG thinking
in this area in the week after the last IETF. This was requested
by many people who wanted to know what we would do as a result of
the CONFIG MANAGEMENT BOF we had at that IETF meeting in DC.

I posted the IESG thinking of letting both COPS/PIB and SNMP/MIB
work to go on concurrently. I posted that to at least 2 or 3
mailing lists, I need to check if you want to know the exact ones.
It included a statement that we would consider chartering this
new SNMPCONF WG.
It also included the statement that RAP can continue with COPS/PIB
and that Diffserv would do a PIB.

When forming thsi SNMPCONF WG, we did discuss if the diffserv policy
MIB that this WG is planning to do should be put into diffserv WG.
But those WG chairs are of course not eager to entertain that (they
were also quite reluctant to accept the PIB work). SO we have
formulated it in this SNMPCONF WG in such a way that the WG needs
to make sure they interact with the Diffserv WG.

So... decision on if this WG is a good thing to do or not seem
out of scope for this list. Feel free communicate with me or
the IESG about the decision to start this WG, but do not clutter
this list with that discussion. This WG has been chartered and
I hope they will focus on meeting the milestones in the charter.

Bert

---

From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 09:46:04 -0500

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> I am confused about the value of a MIB with "BCP" status. Surely this should
> be either standards'-track or informational. [Are there other instances of
> BCP MIBs?].
> 

There are three deliverables - one BCP document and two MIBs. The MIBs
will not be BCP status, only the BCP document will have that status. The
appropriate status for the MIB documents will be determined once the
MIBs are completed. 

[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:38:20 -0800

Bert,

I think that "the WG chairs wouldn't want to do it" is a very poor reason to
change a fairly well-established IESG principle that Scott has been
defending for for quite a while. Such principles should either be applied
uniformly or discarded: pick one.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Bert Wijnen
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Sent: 02/01/2000 3:44 AM
Subject: snmpconfig Re: Work on the Diff Serv Policy MIB

Bert