Hi Ron, Thursday (18 March 1999)
I temporarily lost my mind there. Of course, we should FIRST get the
full content of PWG Job Mon MIB v1.0 published as *any* kind of RFC.
But it is intriguing that Bert Wijnen suggested 'Experimental'. Shall
we pursue a free-standing charter for an IETF Job Mon MIB WG? Harry,
do you favor this idea? We could always add the definition of standard
SNMP job traps to our charter. They certainly ARE necessary to get
the most utility out of the PWG Job Mon MIB.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:07:10 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
> From: Ron Bergman <rbergma at dpc.com>
> To: Ira McDonald <imcdonal at sdsp.mc.xerox.com>
> cc: chrisw at iwl.com, jmp at pwg.org, lpyoung at lexmark.com> Subject: Re: JMP> Job Monitoring MIB - Last Call
>> Ira,
>> I was also very surprised when it was proposed by Bert Wijnen to publish
> the MIB as "Experimental" and I did question this decision. Several other
> IETF members also agreed that it should be "Experimental". I actually
> would prefer "Informational", but as long as it is published they can call
> it a "Dumb PWG Specification".
>> Are you suggesting that we publish 1.0 as "Informational" and 2.0 as
> "Experimental" or "Standards Track"? Or only publish 2.0? The goal has
> been to get an RFC number on 1.0 and then finish 2.0 after a Bake-off.
>> It may make more sense to just get 1.0 published however the IETF wants
> and then push for 2.0 to be standards track.
>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.