[STDS-802-16] [NETMAN_SG] Network Management Study Group
Title: Message
All,
We need to get
moving on inputs to the network management study group. The goal I put forth to
the WG is that we do our work before and during the May meeting, so this will
require us to work some of the issues on the reflector and maybe have a
conference call or two, if we are to produce a PAR and five criteria during the
interim. If we don't have a workable basis for consensus going into the May
meeting, then I expect we will be asking for an extention in July, and that is a
long time, given that it would then be November before the TG request would be
approved by the EC and NesCom would add more time to the process, so maybe we
would be looking at 2005 before we had a group for real. Finishing in May is a
good plan.
I propose that email
directed to this effort has [NETMAN_SG] in the subject line to allow appropriate
filtering.
The primary thing
that led me to suggesting a study group was the plethora of different things
people wanted to do with respect to network management, network architectures,
interfaces, MIBs and so on and the rapid closure of .16d as a forum in which to
address them. My personal wish list is no secret, you will find it in the
comment databases - security, interfaces, MIBs.
So as a first step,
I would like to request that people forth their ideas for what problems
they think network management group or groups (don't let the name
predjudice the function) should be solving, or what features they should be
introducing. This will give us a list of issues that we can enumerate, sort,
sift, rejig, classify and generally argue about until we can approach consensus
on scope and purpose. But first we need the issues out on the table for all to
see.
A potential benefit
I suggested was that items of questionable scope in .16e might find a more
secure home in a new group. This is not my idea and I have not been in the loop
on these discussions (although I do like the idea), so perhaps it would be
useful input for people who are thinking along these lines to start describing
specifics of what bits in .16e are problematic and might benefit from a
group with a clear scope to address them.
I'll make my
suggestions in a separate email..
DJ
(chair 802.16
network management study group)