[Bridge-mib] Charter discussion

["Harrington, David" <dbh at enterasys.com>]

Hmmm. Quiet.

We've asked for comments on the charter and asked for document review
prior to WG last call, and have gotten about three responses to each
request.

Since there appears to be a high degree of apathy in this group, and
there is a real lack of editors available, I'd like to consider ways to
reduce the workload yet to be accomplished.

I suggest
1) eliminating the 802.1x mib from the charter. The IEEE has already
published one, and ours is just a duplicate. I believe ours is now out
of sync with the updated 802.1x work as well.
2) eliminating the SMIv2 update for RFC1493. A MIB document has three
general use cases - implementation, application import, and
documentation for human consumption. Most implementors have already
implemented against RFC1493. Most applications can import the SMIv1
version without any significant problems. Humans can read the SMIv1
version as easily as they can read the SMIv2 version. 
	So we don't really need an SMIv2 version, unless we want to
advance RFC1493 in the standards track, but I don't see the commercial
benefit to doing this, and companies spoonsoring editors probably won't
see a return for their sponsorship.
	There are a few updates done to the descriptions to match IEEE
updates to their management. If the IEEE thinks the update is important,
then they can take our document and finalize it.

That would leave us with just two documents to complete instead of four.
If we cannot get adequate reviews for these two documents, then I'll
suggest discarding these documents as well, and closing the WG.

Comments?

David Harrington            
dbh@enterasys.com
Director, Network Management Architecture
Office of the CTO, Enterasys Networks


_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib