[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: snmpconf taxonomy discussion(s) - suggested resolution



Jon, I understand your frustration... but you migth give it
a try to show that WG is in favor of BCP.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Saperia [mailto:saperia@jdscons.com]
> Sent: maandag 27 augustus 2001 22:03
> To: snmpconf@snmp.com
> Subject: Re: snmpconf taxonomy discussion(s) - suggested resolution 
> 
> 
> Cehck the archives.
> /jon
> > HI,
> > 
> > Jon - would you like to try again with content this time FROM THE
> > WG discussion. I'm not asking for YOUR OPINION (you have already
> > voiced it). I was asking for a summary of the WG opinion, which
> > is the ONLY THING that matters.
> > 
> > At 03:01 PM 8/27/2001 -0400, Jon Saperia wrote:
> > >> HI,
> > >> 
> > >> Jon - would you summarize the pros and cons for BCP 
> categorization.
> > >
> > >I think I have. The document falls within the guidelines 
> suggested by  2026. 
> > >Can you make a compelling case why the document should not 
> be a BCP?
> > >/jon
> > >> 
> > >> At 01:42 PM 8/27/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > >> >David, the working group had a discussion of whether to 
> call this a BCP. in 
> > >> >March. At that time we did not find a compelling reason 
> to change it. Unless 
> > >> >you can find some compelling reason that convinces the 
> working group to the 
> > >> >contrary we will issue it for last call as a BCP.
> > >> >...
> > >> >Thanks,
> > >> >/jon
> > >> 
> > >> Regards,
> > >> /david t. perkins
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >/jon
> > 
> > Regards,
> > /david t. perkins
> > 
> > 
> 
> Thanks,
> /jon
> --
> 
> Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
> 			     Phone: 617-744-1079
> 			     Fax:   617-249-0874
> 			     http://www.jdscons.com/
>