Subject: Pitiful participation

From: "Mike St. Johns" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:28:31 -0700

Folks -

I put out a call for agenda items and volunteers for participation and got 
back exactly 2 responses, only one of which actually volunteered to do 
anything.

Given that there are over 20 vendors actually trying to build a business in 
this space, I find this rather distressing.

The message I sent previously is attached.  Please take another look and 
figure out whether you (or your company) can commit to doing some work in 
this space.   Without community participation, it will be time to close out 
the working group.  But that will in turn affect the ability of the vendors 
to move forward to support the DOCSIS1.1 space as each vendor will have to 
come up with their own MIBs to cover the management of DOCSIS1.1, QOS and 
others.  I need editors, I need presenters.  Vounteer!

Mike

 >We're due to meet at the Oslo IETF at the beginning of the week (Monday the
 >11th of July).  I'm looking for suggestions for agenda items.  Please send
 >them to me [email-masked]'.
 >
 >
 >I'm also looking for people to do the following presentations or discussions
 >at the meeting:
 >
 >a) Someone from the European Cablelab(s) to discuss what's happening in 
their
 >standards space (e.g. Davic/DVB?) and what if any changes would need to be
 >made to the mibs to cover that space as well.
 >
 >b) Someone to take a whack at the new features and functions in Docsis1.1 vs
 >Docsis1.0 with a follow on discussion to figure out which of these functions
 >have to be managed (e.g. QOS, BPI+, Multicast).  I'll take multiple 
presenters
 >in this space to cover the individual pieces.
 >
 >c) Someone to talk about any experiences fielding Telco return modems with a
 >view to fixing/modifying the current Telco return MIB draft for publication.
 >
 >d) Any proposals re filtering in the cable modem - this was the most debated
 >part of the CM mib during the last pass.
 >
 >e) I'll be leading a discussion on exactly what work items remain for the
 >group.
 >
 >
 >Status:
 >
 >As of a couple of  weeks or so ago, the IESG passed the RF and CM mibs and
 >sent them to the RFC editor for publication as Proposed Standards.  The
 >editing errors mention on the list in the last few weeks (e.g. body text 
that
 >refers to removed objects) will be fixed during this process.  For
 >implementors - expect that the root of the CM mib will move under mib-2 
(vice
 >current "experimental" root, but that the RF mib should stay where it is.
 >
 >On that subject, I'm looking for editors for the next versions of the CM and
 >RF MIBs.  The goal will be to a) fix any issues that are discovered in the
 >next 6 months until the things go to draft standard, and b) to bring them up
 >to IPv6 and DOCSIS1.1 compatibility.
 >
 >Later, Mike

---

From: Guenter Roeck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:29:07 -0700 (PDT)

As I recall, there was some background fight going on regarding the
previous MIB editor. Maybe people are hesitant to get into the line 
of fire :-).

Cheers,
Guenter

---

From: [email-masked] (Randall Atkinson)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:52:19 -0700

Guenter's comment is actually pretty fair.

There really WAS a lot of griping by vendor folks about folks
at other vendors.  This is not constructive and leads to the
situation where sane people might not want to participate.

Ran
[email-masked]