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

RE: vendor capabilities - is this actually a good idea?


I'm not heavily invested in this idea, but I
do see some potential benefits to interoperability.

We're discussing a mechanism to allow feature extensions
to SNMP.  It's exceedingly unlikely that all of the
features that people want are going to make it through
the IETF, especially in this first round.  (Nor would
we want them to--there should be some experimental
validation first.)

By defining an official way to do "enterprise subtrees"
of feature extension specifiers, we discourage vendors
from using the IETF space for their own purposes.  And
highly successful vendor-specific features can eventually
be moved into the standard space.

My 2 cents....


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-eos@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-eos@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Sharon Chisholm
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:13 PM
To: EOS WG (eos@ops.ietf.org)
Subject: vendor capabilities - is this actually a good idea?


Glenn's presentation this morning mentioned the idea of letting
the vendors define their own extensions to SNMP and that
we include a method in the capabilities MIB to handle
this situation.

Do we really want to do this?  This sounds like something that
will make multi-vendor management a lot more complicated.  
The enhancements that EOS is proposing will be defined in RFCs.
Where will vendor extensions be properly defined? Is there enough 
benefit in supporting vendor extensions to off-set the management 

Sharon Chisholm
Preside Management
Nortel Networks
Ottawa, Ontario