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

Re: Call for censensus on path forward



[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

>>>>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:27:36 -0400, Bob Natale <Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com> said:

Bob> b.  At the risk of showing my age, I believe that
Bob> MIBs can be made *vastly* more capable -- in terms of, e.g.,
Bob> aggregate/derived objects, behavior/operations, secure sets,
Bob> multi-entity interoperation, publish/subscribe services, etc.
Bob> -- without major mods to the SMI and definitely
Bob> without modifications to SNMP[v3] itself.

Interesting.  So, you generally disagree with the reasons behind the
chartering if both the EoS working group and the SMIng working group?

(on a side note, have you read some of the operator-requirements
documents?)

I think much of the newer work is not to say that it's not possible to
do things with the existing technologies (both SMI and PDU types), but
that it's hard and the effort to make things happen is large.  If the
effort can be reduced, then the number of MIBs we can deploy in the
future will likely be greater and will increase in deployment speed.
I suspect, though, that you disagree with this.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Network Associates Laboratories