Re: [ippm] comments on draft-ietf-ippm-reporting-mib-04.txt

As chair, I'd like to say that Andy's comment below is what
I've heard informally, but no one has to-date posted to the
list.  I'd like to ask others to read the draft, and comment
on the complexity (or any other area) --  do you agree, or
do you think that the current draft is on the right track.

With my chair hat off, I concur with Andy's assessment below.
What I always intended to implement with Surveyor was a simple
scheme to export the basic data types; if there was any complex
manipulation, it would be done by the software playing the role
as a network management system.

--Matt

--On Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:02 AM -0800 Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com> wrote:

> Although a good job has been done documenting this MIB,
> IMO it is too complex to be deployable.  The resource
> requirements in the agent are very large.  Some of the
> tables can get extremely large, which would lead to
> poor SNMP performance.  The resource limitation mechanisms
> do not align well with actual SNMP agent implementation
> constraints.
>
> This MIB is way too complicated and contains too many
> features that should be provided by an EMS or NMS.  There
> are likely to be many implementation difficulties due to
> undocumented (and unforeseen) interactions between features.
> The MIB should be simplified to collect metric values
> and provide aggregation reports which can be retrieved
> via SNMP.  Analysis of the reports, threshold based
> exception handling, sending email and pages to administrators,
> etc. should be left to the application.

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm