Subject: [Isms] updated issues and consensus proposals

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:57:08 +0200

Hi,

I like to closure on the TMSM issues. Attached is the list of issues
plus excerpts of the email discussion plus concensus positions. Please
check.

Dave, it would be good if you can update the TMSM document before the
cutoff so that we can move to last call mode on this document. Please
also take into account the feedback provided by Sumanth Channabasappa
<[email-masked]> on 25 May 2006.

It would of course also be helpful to get the SSHSM update done before
the cutoff.

To the WG: I have not seen much feedback/discussion on the SSHSM
document snapshot which Dave posted on 18 May 2006. It would be really
helpful to get some feedback. If you do not want to read the whole
document, please look for the [todo] and [discuss] markers and provide
input to help us complete our documents.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:50:11 -0400

Hi,

I plan to publish a new SSHSM revision today. I think it is much
easier to follow the EOP than the last revision, and some duplication
of text has been reduced. So you might want to wait for that one.

On the other hand, If you look at the revision I published in May, it
may be easier to see the changes made between that and the previous
revision. The new revision will be harder to review using diffs.

I have reordered a number of the paragraphs in the new revision, and
most of the [todo] and [discuss] markers have been removed in the new
revision. Since I was getting no feedback, I simply discussed the
[discuss]es with myself and went with the consensus ;-) 

The SSHSM MIB module has nothing in it right now, except the
transportAddress TC. It probably should have error counters. When
reviewing the greatly-improved EOP, the WG should pay attention to
what error counters they think should be in the MIB.

We're getting closer to the end on these documents.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:57 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Isms] updated issues and consensus proposals
> 
> Hi,
>