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

FW: sming meeting minutes draft... Questions for the wg.

Title: FW: sming meeting minutes draft... Questions for the wg.

I meant to send this to the list...

-----Original Message-----
From: Waters, Glenn [CAR:IO47:EXCH]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 23:30
To: 'Durham, David'
Subject: RE: sming meeting minutes draft... Questions for the wg.

Where to start.

XML is overshadowing all other network management discussions in the IETF. It is hard to do anything SNMP without XML being mentioned. Further, attendance at the SMIng/EOS meetings in Atlanta was close to pathetic. I attribute this to lack of interest and my guess is that this is because of XML.

SMIv3 provides much needed structure to the data; however, I fear the forklift upgrade necessary in order to get it deployed will be very detrimental to its success. I am not convinced SMIv3 could be deployed before XML has traction. I also don't think that using SMIv3 with other protocols such as XML is useful -- there are too many other schema definition languages for XML already. Further, if there are simplifications that we need for the other XML schema languages we should pick one and work with that body.

I think that the OOPS draft has the most potential although we should ensure the features that it offers are what we want to pursue. OOPS does not require a forklift upgrade. The features that it offers can operate on the existing SMI. The one issue with EOS is that an upgrade to the protocol stack is still required. Given the amount of time this is taking for SNMPv3 I fear that industry uptake will be below an acceptable level.

The bottom line is that interest in SMIng and EOS is low. Interest in XML is high. SNMP has no workers. XML has people jumping to help. I think that the IETF needs to reconcile where we want to go in the network management space. The reality is that XML is coming, it just may be that the IETF will not be defining it.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Durham, David [mailto:david.durham@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 16:53
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: sming meeting minutes draft... Questions for the wg.
> Originally there was much excitement around the smi-ds proposal from the
> wg
> participants. Now that we are peeling back the onion a bit I think we are
> seeing some of the complexities of this approach emerge, and we are
> experiencing some notable feature creep as well. So I wonder if the wg
> sentiment is cooling and why. Two fundamental questions that I would like
> people to (quickly) respond:
> Are people still interested in perusing the hierarchical instance naming
> using oids as proposed in the smi-ds document?
> Are you interested in helping by being an editor on one or more of the
> documents listed below?
> If feature creep and gratuitous changes are the only issues, that is
> fixable. I want to understand if the fundamentals of the smi-ds proposal
> are
> still viable and have wg support.
> -Dave
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:48 AM
> > To: Durham, David; sming@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: sming meeting minutes draft...
> >
> > I'd like to get a few more details on this (I think we got them
> > at the meeting):
> >
> > > Revisited Charter and Milestones. Updated charter was put on
> > > the mailing list. No issues raised on the list, no issues
> > > raised at the meeting either. According to the charter
> > > milestones we are a year behind. The original milestones
> > > assumed the nmrg documents which were complete, but the wg
> > > chose to investigate the smi-ds route. We will still need a
> > > few iterations on the smi-ds/v3 documents before they will be
> > > complete. The current proposed list of documents in priority order is:
> > >
> > > -        1. SMIv3 Language Definition: Andy Bierman
> > > -        2. Capabilities MIB: Andy Bierman: DONE
> > > -        3. SMIv3 Guidelines
> > > -        4. Transition from SMIv2
> > > -        5. SMIv3 MIB Modules (core types)
> > > -        6. INET Modules (textual conventions)
> > > -        7. RFC 2580 Conformance Updates
> > >
> > > We need volunteers for the documents or the wg will shut
> > > down, and the smi will not progress. Previous volunteers for
> > > the guidelines and transition documents are waiting for the
> > > language definition. In principle, people support the smi-ds
> > > work, but we will need people to sign up to get the work
> > > done. Likewise from the discussion at the wg meeting it seems
> > > that there is a lot of waffling on how we proceed item by
> > > item through the open issues listed below.
> > >
> > My understanding at the meeitng was that Andy un-volunteered for some
> > docs. And so I like to clearly understand who is currently volunteer
> > for what. I also like to see commitments as follows:
> >
> > - Volunteers to commit to deliver a reasonable revision of the
> >   document they volunteer for
> > - From the WG to do serious review and to provide serious input
> >   for the editors and the chair, so that we can get to consensus.
> >
> > The lack of WG participation and the lack of enthusiastic volunteers
> > for all documents does not bode well. And as David said, we're
> > already 1 year behind schedule.
> >
> > Thanks, Bert