RE: [Isms] charter proposal

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen at lucent.com>]

w.r.t.
> Also, all decisions at IETF are confirmed by the mailing list.  I am
> saying that this is one we ought not confirm.  Instead, we should
> continue with draft development and compare approaches, 
> particularly in
> light of the broader context, and then make a decision.
> 
> The ADs have made it clear that they want us to finish, and have
> suggested that perhaps an interim meeting might help.

First, in this case I am not an AD for the WG. I am SNMP (or OPS area)
advisor to the WG. So I do not play AD role here.

Second, I did indeed make that suggestion, and stated that such
would be acceptable to me, but that I rather prefer a decision now.

I do not recall that Sam in fact agreed with the suggestion. I'd expect
he wants to see more discussion on the list w.r.t. confirming the
decision that seemed obvious in the f2f WG session. Sam can
speak up if I am mis-representing him.

Let me add (for repeated clarity):
The only reason I even though of this is because some were asking
for another delay to Vancouver (i.e extend yet one more IETF meeting
as we have had so many before). An interim would give some extra
time (max september in my view) to better discuss the choice between
the shortlist (ssh and beep). But it at the same time REQUIRES
commitement from all WG members to do a lot os serious work within
the next 5-7 weeks and to invest not only time but also travel
to an interim. In other words a lot of extra work in order to get 
a little bit of extra time. 

Again, it was a suggestion that I can live with, but which is up to
the AD (Sam) to approve.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms