Subject: RE: [Isms] charter proposal

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:04:07 -0700

Hi,

With much respect to all people involved, I note that nearly
a year has passed since this working group rushed into work.
And the divisions and disagreements are, if anything, worse.

If people with strongly held opinions on specific directions
would sit down and write REALLY complete proposals, maybe this
effort would progress.

As a working group, it feels a lot like the many years SNMPv2
debacle.

And of course, NOTHING was decided in Paris.  This is a chartered
IETF working group.  Rough concensus on the mailing list is the
ONLY place that decisions get made.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:26 AM
> To: Eliot Lear; [email-masked]
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; Andy Bierman; Sam Hartman; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Isms] charter proposal
> 
> 
> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
> 

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 14:08:45 -0400

Hi Ira,

I totally disagree with your analysis. 

I think we have accomplished a lot. Not as much as I would have liked,
but a lot nonetheless. We have written multiple proposals, reviewed
those proposals, convened an official review team and published a
fairly detailed analysis of the proposals, discussed the ramifications
of the architectural differences of the proposals, eliminated some
proposals, chosen a general direction for focus (use of encapulating
protocols to carry SNMP messages), cleaned up the initial proposal,
identified and discussed many technical issues relative to the TMSM
approach, had a BEEP/TMSM proposal written and reviewed, and started
work on an SSH/TMSM proposal - and we have seven editors willing to
commit to working against a short deadline. I see lots of agreement on
direction, and even though some industry segments wish we had selected
different directions, rough consensus on the chosen direction. I wish
some of the other WGs I've been in had made this kind of progress.

As far as this being comparable to SNMPv2 years, no way! During those
years we suffered through tremendous ego battles as responsibility for
designing solutions shifted from the "big four" players to the whole
SNMP community; abandoned a Proposed Standard when we realized the
design was completely non-viable for application vendors; we suffered
the segmentation of the community into two major "camps"; and we
suffered through an imposed shutdown of the WG and ALL network
management development work, not because the WG couldn't reach
consensus or finish documents but to avoid the constant acrimonious
flame wars between the camps. We are seeing none of the ego battles or
flame wars in this WG, and given the progress we have manifested, I
think it unlikely this WG will be shutdown soon.

David Harrington
[email-masked]

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Ira
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:04 PM
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Eliot Lear; [email-masked]