Subject: Anyone there?

From: [email-masked] (Maria Greene)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:13:16 -0400

Hi, UPSers. It has been suggested that I get involved as co-chair of
this WG to try to get RFC1628 moved along. (Jeff finally half
succeeded in quitting. :)

There hasn't been any real discussion on this list for over a
year. Does anybody care about this MIB? I'm not a UPS developer, nor
do I play one on tv, so I would need real participation from you guys
if this is to get done.

One of our illustrious area directors (Bert Wijnen) has made this
request:

    > So I would want the WG to decide on one of these:
    >  a. Recycle a doc at Proposed (seems there is a list of wanted
    >     changes that would require a recycle at Proposed).
    >  b. Move the doc to Draft (if the changes turn out not to require
    >     a recycle at Proposed). It seems that there are multiple
    >     implementations, not sure yet if they are interoperable. That
    >     would have to be proven in this case.
    >  c. Decide that the current doc is good enough and make it an
    >     informational document.
    > In any event, we cannot leave the RFC1628 lingering at Proposed forever.
    > If options a or b are chosen then I need a new set of milestones too.

I need your opinions on this and any input you have about "wanted
changes". Based on the response, we'll decide where to go from there.

Maria Greene
[email-masked]

---

From: Chris Herzog <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:09:50 -0500

>     >     changes that would require a recycle at Proposed).

There was some pretty hot and heavy quite some time back (probably two years
ago?) regarding adding support for receptacle control but I don't think any
concensus was actually reached.  Agreeing on a next set of revisions could be
bloody...

>     >     would have to be proven in this case.

Same sort of issues as with a. I'd guess

>From my experience in developing several UPS MIB implementations, I'd have to
say that I haven't heard any real feedback from my UPS OEM customers in regards
to making significant additions or changes to 1628 functionality.

This would seem to suggest that moving to Informational is the correct choice.

-- 

Chris Herzog			Software Technologies Group, Inc.
mailto:[email-masked]		http://www.stg.com

---

From: [email-masked] (Maria Greene)
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 14:23:28 -0400

Hi, Chris.

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Herzog <[email-masked]> writes:

    Chris> Maria Greene wrote:

    >> year. Does anybody care about this MIB? I'm not a UPS
    >> developer, nor do I play one on tv, so I would need real
    >> participation from you guys if this is to get done.
    >> 
    >> One of our illustrious area directors (Bert Wijnen) has made
    >> this request:
    >> 
    >> > So I would want the WG to decide on one of these: >
    >> a. Recycle a doc at Proposed (seems there is a list of wanted >

    Chris> There was some pretty hot and heavy quite some time back
    Chris> (probably two years ago?) regarding adding support for
    Chris> receptacle control but I don't think any concensus was
    Chris> actually reached.  Agreeing on a next set of revisions
    Chris> could be bloody...

Have you seen Adam's document? Does it cover the items that were being
discussed? Agreeing on changes is often bloody, but is it worth it in
this case?

    >> > b. Move the doc to Draft (if the changes turn out not to
    >> require > a recycle at Proposed). It seems that there are
    >> multiple > implementations, not sure yet if they are
    >> interoperable. That > would have to be proven in this case.

    Chris> Same sort of issues as with a. I'd guess

Hopefully the issues wouldn't be contentious (we'd just be making
minor changes to the current draft with no substantive changes or
additions), but we would have to dig out those implementation surveys
and report on them. The minutes from the last WG meeting (which I'll
post) implied this approach.

    >> implementations, I'd have to
    Chris> say that I haven't heard any real feedback from my UPS OEM
    Chris> customers in regards to making significant additions or
    Chris> changes to 1628 functionality.

    Chris> This would seem to suggest that moving to Informational is
    Chris> the correct choice.

That's definitely the choice of least effort. If customers don't care
about standards in this area, then why bother? Sounds like enough
interest was there for an "industry consortium" to get together to do
further work on this, though. The IETF is supposed to be "neutral
ground" where this type of work goes on. My suspician is that going to
Informational would reflect a lapse in the process, not the real state
the document should be in. 

    Chris> --

    Chris> Chris Herzog Software Technologies Group, Inc.
    Chris> mailto:[email-masked] http://www.stg.com

Maria