Since the below requires of Eliot that he "make significant progress on
all of these issues", it is probably impossible to achieve in several
months, let alone a few days. Thus, based on the below, the "final
determination" is a foregone conclusion.
Keith.
Eliot> I request an extension of the deadline for comments to
Eliot> September 21st on the following basis:
Eliot> - the period of comment has been less than a week, far
Eliot> shorter than the normal period of IETF-wide review. - of
Eliot> the time allotted, the principle instigator of this review
Eliot> has been absent from debate for five days due to prior
Eliot> commitments. That was me.
Hi, Eliot. I have not made any determination as yet about whether I
will pull ISMS from the Thursday telechat and am unlikely to make a
final determination until the time of that telechat.
When I originally ruled call home out of scope I gave you some
suggestions for how to approach things from a process standpoint. In
evaluating your request I will consider how much progress has been
made on these issues so far and on whether it is likely that you could
make additional progress on these issues by September 21.
Let us go back and consider my original advice to you:
When the charter is sent to me for IESG review, ask me to send it out
for external review (IETF wide) rather than just approving it; I will
honor such a request. You will need a proposal ready to present to
the community when the charter comes out for review. The proposal
should include proposed modifications to the charter to make call home
in scope. In addition you probably want to answer the following
concerns:
* People believe that architectural changes to SNMP should happen in
the management not security area. Either convince them that this is
OK in the security area, propose moving the working group, or
propose splitting the work appropriately.
* Address the concerns about the lack of MIBs and other facilities for
managing call home. Have a proposal ready for what is involved in
doing the work.
* Understand concerns Bert is likely to raise and respond to them.
so, here are some specific questions related to our progress to date
on these items. Answering these questions will help me determine
whether extending the review period to September 21 is likely to be
productive.
1) Have you proposed a specific set of charter changes? Who has
supported these charter changes?
2) How have you addressed the specific concerns about the location of
the work ? Who has agreed with your proposed resolution?
3) Is there a consensus emerging that CH needs to be solved as part of
ISMS? This is the part where additional time is most likely to
help you, but I think it fair to ask who has supported blocking
ISMS on CH so far. Note that people who support CH but who
believe it could be done in a separate working group or who have
not expressed an opinion do not count. They may well count for
justifying support for a CH BOF or for justification of a
publication request for an individual submission adding CH to the
SNMP architecture.
4) What response have you given to concerns about whether the
architectural extensions for CH are sufficiently well defined? Who
has supported this proposal?
5) How are your discussions going with Bert to resolve his concerns?
What about other key members of the management community who have
expressed concerns?
Here's how I'm going to make a decision. I believe that in order to
get a change to the SNMP charter it is necessary to make significant
progress on all of these issues. I'm going to evaluate your answers
and consider whether I think the progress to date makes it likely that
you will have sufficient support for a new charter by September 21
without significant opposition. In other words whether the community
and IESG can agree to the new charter by the end of the review period.
If the progress to date makes it likely that we're headed in that
direction, I'll grant the request. Otherwise I will ask the IESG to
approve the charter on Thursday.
There's an internal issue that may well prevent the charter from being
announced before the 21st even if no formal extension is granted.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms(_at_)lists(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf