Subject: RE: [midcom] RE: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:38:55 -0600

Dave,

With Regards to your PS:
>PS. Where is XML over HTTP or BEEP in the consideration? That's the
>direction the nm-community seems to be going these days. 

As stated in the protocol evaluation document, only the protocols put forth
at the time this process began (March/April timeframe) were considered.
There were no volunteers for the evaluation to inclue XML over HTTP or BEEP,
thus they're out of scope for this discussion.

Regards,
Mary.

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

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:09:08 +0100

Mary,

> thus they're out of scope for this discussion.

So, you say even if someone showed that XML over HTTPS is the perfect
solution, the working group would ignore it?

    Juergen

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:12:33 -0500

> solution, the working group would ignore it?

No - we absolutely don't value/privilege process over
technical soundness.  However, we do need to push on ahead
if we're going to get our work done, and I'm hoping against
hope that people will start showing greater willingness to
compromise.  Each of us needs to think hard about what the
consequences would be for the working group (not our
employers) if midcom were to select a protocol other than
the one we individually favor.  Consensus-based decision
making simply does not work - at all - in the face of
inflexibility and rigidity on the part of participants.

Melinda

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 18:02:45 -0800

On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 09:12 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
[snip]
>  we absolutely don't value/privilege process over

agree 100%

thx,
-r