Subject: Re: more thoughts on the event mib

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:02:29 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

Juergen raises some interesting issues.  Bob is quite correct about
how late this work is.  No one else has spoken up on this.  There is
serious ugliness in the current MIB.  However, it doesn't appear to be
so broken that it couldn't be made to work.  It's merely complicated,
and thus fits in well with the rest of the SNMP family.  :-)

As chair, I suggest the following as a way ahead:

    The editor will finish updating the draft as agreed on the list.
    If the editor can accommodate Juergen's concerns without massive
    surgery (editor's judgement call) he should do so.  The issues not
    addressed in the update of this document will remain open, to be
    revisited with implementation experience when it's time to consider
    whether this work should advance from Proposed to Draft or cycle.
    Documentation of unresolved issues will be included in the document,
    and in my report to the powers that be.  If leaving this issue open
    forces us to publish this work as "Experimental", so be it.

Howls of protest from the WG might change my position.
Remember, we're supposedly wrapping up WG last call on this work!

Of course, anyone who believes they have a MIB that solves these
problems is encouraged to post to the list or to submit an i-d.  
I'd rather not have multiple solutions, but if that's the price
we have to pay in order to get any solution at all, that's the way
it'll be.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------