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

RE: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation


Right.  And I can also say that by and large we're not one of those vendors
who will be dependent on a stack supplier to support any new EOS functions,
since we have our own stacks on most of our plaforms.  Obviously we're not
yet committed to implementing EOS anywhere, since it's not yet reached the
point of being implementable.  But we're certainly interested, because our
customers are interested.


Bob Moore
Advanced Design and Technology
Application Integration Middleware Division
IBM Software Group

                      David"                   To:       "Wes Hardaker" <hardaker@tislabs.com>                                         
                      <dbh@enterasys.co        cc:       "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Glenn Waters"                    
                      m>                        <gww@nortelnetworks.com>, <eos@ops.ietf.org>                                           
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  RE: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation                                   
                      12/06/2002 12:20                                                                                                 

I agree this is subject to debate. I was merely voicing my opinion. During
the meeting, Bob Moore countered that his customers have requested this


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:hardaker@tislabs.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:38 AM
> To: Harrington, David
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Glenn Waters; eos@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation
> >>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:45:16 -0500, "Harrington, David"
> <dbh@enterasys.com> said:
> David> I question whether the features being discussed (here and in
> David> SMING) provide adequate customer benefit to justify the
> David> disruption caused by requiring SNMP stack updates to their
> David> deployed products.
> That's certainly subject to debate, but I can tell you that the
> protocol operations I wrote were designed on the way home from the IAB
> NM seminar because they more directly fit the needs of what that group
> of people needed with respect to functionality.  Now, the deployment
> issue is always a problem.  But then again, you always have to deploy
> something new to get new features so there is no way around that
> regardless of what solution you pick to access something.
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> Network Associates Laboratories