Return-Path: X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 Return-Path: Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23]) by ece.cmu.edu (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h5Q5ZM403096 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:35:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id B1E2A9D; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E8072; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 43BD38A0E; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3269389F7 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 14B306F; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id DDDB884; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A706F for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363) id 641458A0F; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from osgood.ece.cmu.edu (OSGOOD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.25]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167AE89F7 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 8A8E56F; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:45 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Received: by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 6358E7A; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com [194.196.100.236]) by osgood.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737527A for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:34:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180]) by d12lmsgate-3.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5Q5Yasn111550; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:34:37 +0200 Received: from d10ml001.telaviv.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with ESMTP id h5Q5YZxO029938; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:34:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <277DD60FB639D511AC0400B0D068B71E0564CE0D@corpmx14.us.dg.com> To: Black_David@emc.com Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1 February 07, 2003 From: "Julian Satran" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:34:34 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D10ML001/10/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 26/06/2003 08:34:35, Serialize complete at 26/06/2003 08:34:35 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 001B47D2C2256D51_=" Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-11.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10,HTML_10_20,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 001B47D2C2256D51_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I have to take your word on that as my search through the archive revealed 0 references (besides the new thread) for FC MIB. So perhaps it was moved with the AD consent but without any notification to the group. And I don't buy the argument about us being the specialist team. There are many other subjects we can usefully spend our time on. Julo Black_David@emc.com 25/06/03 21:57 To Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL cc ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed Julian, > I do not recall the IPS working group having a FC MIB in it's charter, > nor having being asked to extend the charter to include it by a popular > vote or the IESG. > > I do not know how the MIB draft got to have the name draft-ietf-ips... > that implies a working group work item and I follow this group work from > its inception. The FC Management MIB was moved into the IPS WG with the full knowledge and concurrence of the ADs involved, as the move crossed area boundaries. I believe this was announced and discussed on a number of occasions, but I'd have to dig through past minutes and detailed email archives to find pointers. I believe suggestions that this was somehow not an official WG work item or did not become one by valid means are incorrect. IPS work items have been added on a number of occasions; for example, the SCSI MIB was not explicitly in the charter when we started. The concern Keith raises about having sufficient available expertise to get the job done right was an important consideration in moving work on the FC Management MIB into IPS. > David asked a question to which the answer was silence or NO. IPFC - > or the designated trustees of it's documents are the place to take this. Julian's viewpoint is noted, as is Keith's. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- --=_alternative 001B47D2C2256D51_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
I have to take your word on that as my search through the archive revealed 0 references (besides the new thread) for FC MIB.
So perhaps it was moved with the AD consent but without any notification to the group.
And I don't buy the argument about us being the specialist team.  There are many other subjects we can usefully spend our time on.

Julo


Black_David@emc.com

25/06/03 21:57

To
Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
cc
ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject
RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed





Julian,

> I do not recall the IPS working group having a FC MIB in it's charter,
> nor having being asked to extend the charter to include it by a popular
> vote or the IESG.
>
> I do not know how the MIB draft got to have the name draft-ietf-ips...
> that implies a working group work item and I follow this group work from
> its inception.

The FC Management MIB was moved into the IPS WG with the full knowledge
and concurrence of the ADs involved, as the move crossed area boundaries.
I believe this was announced and discussed on a number of occasions, but
I'd have to dig through past minutes and detailed email archives to
find pointers.  I believe suggestions that this was somehow not an
official WG work item or did not become one by valid means are incorrect.
IPS work items have been added on a number of occasions; for example,
the SCSI MIB was not explicitly in the charter when we started.

The concern Keith raises about having sufficient available expertise
to get the job done right was an important consideration in moving work
on the FC Management MIB into IPS.

> David asked a question to which the answer was silence or NO.  IPFC -
> or the designated trustees of it's documents are the place to take this.

Julian's viewpoint is noted, as is Keith's.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
--=_alternative 001B47D2C2256D51_=--