RE: Additional FC MIBs proposed

[Black_David@emc.com]

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
----------------------------------------------------