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

RE: Call for censensus on path forward



At 11:34 AM 9/20/2002 -0700, David T. Perkins wrote:
>HI,
>
>While I like some of Wes's proposal (and fundamentally EXTREMELY oppose
>some of the technical items in Wes's proposal), I have a higher level
>problem with the WG working on Wes's proposal. The issue is that it
>is research and dependent on SMIng additions. Also, I feel (but this
>needs to be verified), that Wes's proposal means substantial changes
>in all management information access code. This is just a show stopper.

I strongly disagree with your premise that Wes's proposal depends
on SMIv3, and also that we should not attempt to advance the protocol
in a manner that allows us to take advantage of SMIv3 when it is
completed.  Protocol operations on aggregate objects are important 
features to support.

It is extremely important that we advance the state of the art in
both the protocol and the SMI.  We cannot use the lame excuse in
one WG "We can't do this because it won't be useful unless the other
WG does X."  If EOS isn't the WG that should work on meaningful
advancements to SNMP then I suggest we disband EOS and form a new
WG, or expand the charter of the SMING WG. 

I don't agree with speculative arguments that certain advancements
would cause too much code to change to implement and therefore  
the problem should not be addressed by the WG.  If something offers 
enough value, the code will get written.  SNMP isn't the only game in 
town, and new code is getting written anyway.  I think the choices
are either advance SNMP or let it eventually die as a legacy technology.

Andy



>On the other hand, I believe that the GETCOLs proposal might be
>implementable with changes only to the SNMP agent. If so, it can be
>"easily" deployed in the next "system release cycle". And it compared
>to the old "GETROW" proposal, actually provides much benefits to
>application developers.
>
>At 02:05 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, Glenn Waters wrote:
>
>>Thanks for prodding me Wes. 
>>
>>My observation so far is that there is pretty much unanimous support for Wes's proposal with a number of people suggesting we should pick up some of the ideas in Dave Sheild's proposal.
>>
>>If there are any other opinions out there please get them to the list. There has been no recent discussion on the Keeni proposal and there has been no discussion on the Perkins proposal.
>>
>>I will be posting what I believe to be consensus on Monday unless significant discussion still appears to be going on. 
>>
>>Cheers, /gww  
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- 
>>> From: Wes Hardaker [<mailto:wes@hardakers.net>mailto:wes@hardakers.net] 
>>> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 11:10 
>>> To: Waters, Glenn [CAR:IO47:EXCH] 
>>> Cc: eos@ops.ietf.org 
>>> Subject: Re: Call for censensus on path forward 
>>> 
>>> >>>>> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:51:32 -0400, "Glenn Waters" 
>>> <gww@nortelnetworks.com> said: 
>>> 
>>> Glenn> The working group needs to come to consensus around which 
>>> Glenn> problems that should be solved and which of the solutions below 
>>> Glenn> best addresses those problems. 
>>> ... 
>>> Glenn> I will announce the summary of the consensus call one week from 
>>> Glenn> today (Monday, September 23) *unless* there is still active 
>>> Glenn> discussion which would preclude being able to make a reasonable 
>>> Glenn> decision at that time. 
>>> 
>>> The deadline is coming up rather fast, and I think we should be 
>>> hearing more voices of people that have read the drafts (authors 
>>> excluded, we know what you'd (we'd) vote for).  This WG greatly needs 
>>> to hear the opinions of interested parties if any work is to go 
>>> forward. 
>>> 
>>> Personally, I've read all the drafts and there is good merit in all of 
>>> them.  Obviously, I'm biased toward the solution which I think is 
>>> right (mine, of course ;-) but all the drafts are well worth reading. 
>>> 
>>> I decided personally to leave out logic expressions from the filtering 
>>> in my draft solely because I didn't want to complicate the agent 
>>> processing any further.  David Perkin's has logical expressions in his 
>>> draft (&& || ...) and I'm very interested in hearing whether people 
>>> think this is a good thing or a bad thing, as it's a question I've 
>>> been meaning to ask the WG but was waiting until after a direction was 
>>> picked.  (I'd add logical expressions in a different manner than David 
>>> did, but it's the concept I'm curious if people want or not. 
>>> Currently, my draft has an implicit AND operation on all filtering 
>>> components). 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will 
>>>  insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."   -- Terry 
>>> Pratchett 
>
>Regards,
>/david t. perkins