[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation
Thanks for keeping me honest ;-)
I reread my message, and see that my wording was ambiguous.
I did not intend to imply that a representative from SNMP Research was present and made that statement in the EOS WG meeting. There was no representative from SNMP Research in the meeting. I should have phrased my wording differently to say "A representative from SNMP Research told me, in private communication, that they are already working on implementing the draft ..."
I think the following sentence in my mail reflects that I was relaying information: "I made that statement during the meeting ...".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:14 AM
> To: Harrington, David
> Subject: RE: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation
> Who was present from SNMP Research?
> /david t. perkins
> At 09:45 AM 12/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >I was one of the people representing a vendor dependent on
> stack vendor implementations. The two third party stacks we
> use are from SNMP Research and Net-SNMP. A representative
> from SNMP Research said they are already working on
> implementing the draft, and a representative from Net-SNMP
> said they are implementing the draft (surprise, surprise). I
> made that statement during the meeting in response to Wes's
> question of whether we'd be willing to ask our stack vendor
> to implement this.
> >I think I was the one who questioned whether there was
> benefit, but the concern was whether there was real benefit
> for my company's **customers**.
> >The operators have slapped our wrists for not paying
> adequate attention to end-user needs; we need to consider the
> real benefit to vendor's customers. I question whether the
> features being discussed (here and in SMING) provide adequate
> customer benefit to justify the disruption caused by
> requiring SNMP stack updates to their deployed products.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 3:33 PM
> >> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> >> Cc: Glenn Waters; email@example.com
> >> Subject: Re: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation
> >> >>>>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:10:41 +0100 , "Wijnen, Bert
> >> (Bert)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> >> Bert> I came away with:
> >> Bert> - Wes is willing to implement
> >> Bert> - Some vendors would consider it, but would have to
> >> rely on their stack vendor to
> >> Bert> do the implementation first
> >> Bert> - Some were not sure there was benefit for their company
> >> Bert> I did not get a warm feeling at that point. In fact
> I was quite
> >> Bert> disappointed with the response as to how many want to "help",
> >> Bert> "review", "implement", "use" this technology.
> >> Bert> Was that just me?
> >> Well, I think I'm a bit more optimistic than that. The
> feeling I got
> >> is that the bulking problem is by far the perceived
> largest problem.
> >> I got the feeling people wanted it, but needed their stack
> >> to supply it and may or may not be willing to actually ask
> their stack
> >> provides for it (which I thought was odd). There are other vendors
> >> interested in implementing it that I'm aware of (but I
> can't speak for
> >> them so I won't).
> >> --
> >> Wes Hardaker
> >> Network Associates Laboratories