Subject: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

From: [email-masked] (Maria Greene)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:10:37 -0400

Due to the lack of interest coming from the mailing list in furthering
the UPS MIB working group's work, I'm planning to recommend to our
Area Director that RFC1628 become a historic document and the WG be
disbanded.

If you don't believe this is the consensus of the group, please speak
up quickly. 

Maria Greene
(nominal WG chair)

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:15:44 -0400

Maria,

Why does it have to go to Historic?  Why can't it go forward as is?

- Doug

---

From: [email-masked] (Maria Greene)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:25:14 -0400

Bert, you are quite right. Would "Informational" status relieve
people's concerns? If not, please speak up.

Maria

>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]> writes:

    Bert> Ref: Your note of Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:41:03 -0400 Subject:
    Bert> Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

    Bert> Maria writes:
    >> Thanks, Bob and Harald, for explaining the procedure. Yes,
    >> there is work to do if we want the RFC to advance and my sense
    >> is that there's noone willing to help with it. Correct me if
    >> I'm wrong by volunteering. A change to Historic will not make
    >> the MIB less useful (or make any referencing documents less
    >> correct) and I doubt many customers check the standards process
    >> status when evaluating products.
    >> 
    Bert> Historic may give the impression it is NOT used or no longer
    Bert> used.  Maybe we can move it to "INFORMATIONAL". We do not
    Bert> have a category of "good enough"... and as far as I can tell
    Bert> INFORMATIONAL comes closest to "good enough".

    Bert> When moving to HISTORIC you need do nothing.  When moving to
    Bert> INFORMATIONAL, you may have to add things like security
    Bert> section and such.

    Bert> Bert