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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf