Subject: Re: Request Last Call - draft-ietf-disman-notif-log-mib-09.txt

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:29:47 -0800 (PST)

Hi - 

> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:14:27 -0500
> To: [email-masked]
> From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re:  Request Last Call - draft-ietf-disman-notif-log-mib-09.txt
> References: <Your message of "Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:14:36 -0800 (PST)"<[email-masked]>
>  <[email-masked]>
...
> The MIB has enough stuff in it so that I'd prefer not to add yet more
> features until we have some experience.  Adding a per log timeout could be
> done later.
...

As long as folks are willing to allow the document to cycle at "proposed"
when the time comes, this is ok with me.  I do not want to see this group
fall into the trap of advancement for its own sake.  To put it another
way:

    Arguments based solely on the assertion that a proposed change should
    not be accepted because that making that change might require a
    document to cycle at "proposed" will be considered out of order by
    this WG chair.

If you think something will be needed and you care about progression,
keep in mind that the rules for progression make it easier to remove
unused or unneeded features than to add new ones.  (RFC 2026 clause
4.1.2)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]     http://www.bmc.com
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is coincidental.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:49:56 -0500

>At 2/12/99:04:29 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:

Hi Randy,

<...>
>    document to cycle at "proposed" will be considered out of order by

Now *that* is an excellent attitude and the correct technical
perspective we should all be following in other IETF WGs.

Cordially,

BobN
------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier -----------
Bob Natale         | ACE*COMM              | 301-721-3000 [v]
Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f]
[email-masked]| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com
------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com -------------

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:48:05 -0500

>unused or unneeded features than to add new ones.  (RFC 2026 clause

When and how do we stop tinkering and adding features and actually finish a
work item?

	Bob

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:51:48 +0100

>>>>> Randy Presuhn writes:

Randy> Arguments based solely on the assertion that a proposed
Randy> change should not be accepted because that making that change
Randy> might require a document to cycle at "proposed" will be
Randy> considered out of order by this WG chair.

Thanks Randy. I very much appreciate this statement.

							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)