> Thanks, Chris for your crisp, concise position, which I support. I would also
> like to know if either you, Lloyd or Ron ever received any kind of "rejection"
> from the IETF regarding the JMP charter.
Since we now have a statement from the AD, it probably does not
matter, but just for the record ...
Lloyd and I as co-Chairs did not ask for a charter for the JMP;
we merely asked that the JMP work be tacked on to the PMP
charter. This way we thought we could add what would be a small
MIB that would probably have either the same people or a subset
of those people. Our previous AD said okay, but then apparently
the changes did not go into effect. The issue next came up when
we submitted updated charters and our new AD said there was no
charter for the JMP. We said "oh there must be a mistake..."
I know that the IESG has been trying to figure out a good model
for handling the huge number of requests for chartered Working
Groups surrounding MIBs. I was actually hoping they would put
together a group to define What Makes a Good MIB, and publish a
document, so that interested parties could kind of follow a
workbook approach.
If a clear decision had been made and communicated to us, we
would certainly have forwarded it to the jmp list promptly.
It is not productive to guess, speculate, and communicate
partial information to the list that would just get people
anxious and confused and turn out to be wrong in the final
analysis.