PMP Mail Archive: Re: Re[2]: PMP> Subagent Problem

PMP Mail Archive: Re: Re[2]: PMP> Subagent Problem

Re: Re[2]: PMP> Subagent Problem

Chris Wellens (
Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:26:22 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Bill Wagner wrote:

> Chris,
> Harry says over a year because the PWG had the idea that we would do
> our homework and get all the ducks lined up for the next phase of the
> printer MIB before requesting official work-group sanction.

Could you define what this means? As far as I can tell, the
requirements for going to DRAFT standard were a surprise to most
participants. Therefore, I'm not sure what ducks could have
been lined up. But, I no see no point in beating a dead horse
or dead duck :-).

> This
> effort started in October of 1995. We are now on the n'th interation
> of going over some things, while others remain unaddressed.

Such as?

> We had gone over the need to reference RFC 1907 and RFC 1573 many
> times, and were assure by those whom we beleived to be conniscent that
> we were 'grandfathered' into not needing them.

Can you give me some specific names here or point me to the
email archives where the discussion took place? If the
discussion took place many times, then it should be in the
archives or minutes.

> The change renders many
> of the existing implementations obsolete, and I have some doubt that
> there is any functional justification for the expense and
> cumbersomeness of going to SNMPV2.

Once we go to DRAFT standard, all the current implementations will
be obsolete. Going to DRAFT standard is our goal and the only
reason the group was chartered, so I am not following your

I am not sure what you mean by "functional justification". I
went back and read the language of the requirement, and it says
the standard must be "updated for consistency with the v2 SMI".
I talked to some other Working Group Chairs who found some
liberal interpretations for this. However, we will need a
technical analysis of why complying with 1907 and 1573 will be a
problem. You've concluded it is expensive and cumbersome; you
will need to share the evidence for the conclusion to make a
case for not complying.