Re: [manet] REPORT-MIB - a question and an offer of help to pull it across the finishing line (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Thomas, Joe,

I have not had the time lately to keep up with the REPORT-MIB (as much as I had hoped to) and am happy that there is interest in this capability.  When Joe first proposed it I thought it was a great idea and I still do think it is a valuable capability.  I would be more than happy to have others help or in fact take over ownership of this effort.  I would be glad to help to reinvigorate or transition in any way the WG deems appropriate.

That said, a bit of history.  Our first version of the REPORT-MIB was modeled after RMON2 reporting capabilities after discussions with various Operations Area folks like Bert Wijnen and Andy Bierman.  They had pointed us to previous related work in the RMON WG.  However, the scope was too extensive for an initial experimental capability, so we scoped it back.  Andy Bierman came on as a co-author to help as he was the main author of the initial RMON related capabilities.

Further discussions with Jürgen Schönwälder convinced us that a better model for the REPORT-MIB is as an extension to the work that came out of the DISMAN WG a number of years ago.  I agree with this.  So we had spent some cycles looking at DISMAN capabilities and deciding on the right way to structure the REPORT-MIB as an extension to the DISMAN set of MIBs.  I think this is the right approach and we had written down some initial thoughts on how to do this but we did not issue a revision to the draft and in fact I let it expire.

I am not able to attend the meeting in London, but I would hope and support further discussions on this topic at the WG meetings.  And as I previously mentioned I would welcome and support the WGs recommendations to best move this effort forward.

Thanks, Bob 

US Army CERDEC
QUEST Program, S&TCD
APG, MD

(c) 443.910.4420
(o) 443.395.8744
robert.g.cole@us.army.mil

-----Original Message-----
From: manet [mailto:manet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Macker
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:40 PM
To: Thomas Clausen
Cc: <manet-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; MANET IETF
Subject: Re: [manet] REPORT-MIB - a question and an offer of help to pull it across the finishing line

I am also a fan of type of reporting concepts related to REPORT-MIB they were first inspired way back over a pint in Ireland quite awhile back..a good meeting.

Some of the potential reasons for lapse: I think Bob and I were discussing whether or not there was duplicative work outside manet ( I am definitely not a MGMT standards expert) since some of the concepts are really just generally useful and some "wise" time was taken by Bob to explore who or what else might be doing similar things.  I would actually like to hear his summary thoughts of that exploration.

Bob also has taken input and iterated this a few times to scope it back in complexity  as well as exploring other potential IETF synergies that might be going on in this area (mentioned above).  If you or others implemented related concepts and find them useful thats really a strong motivator to getting it back on track and rediscussing.

-Joe
On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Thomas Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Triggered by the discussions that are ongoing with OPSAWG, it came to my attention that REPORT-MIB is expired, and has been so expired for almost a year (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-report-mib-03 ). 
> 
> I note that this is a WG document, and that therefore the WG is - all of us are -  on the hook of seeing it through to publication.
> 
> Working on MIBs are really, really, tedious and unexciting and very very important work - so this is definitely *not* complaining, and I want to express my appreciation to the authors for having gotten the document so far. Good job!  I'd like to offer my assistance to the authors (& the WG) in seeing this document through and across the finishing line. I am a huge proponent of the ideas in that document, and have them implemented (but deployed only for test purposes), and I really want to see this published ASAP.
> 
> Do you need someone to do an editorial pass? Some specifics that need further development that you have not had cycles to do, but where fresh eyes might help? A review by some directorate, that needs contemplation and folding in?
> 
> Authors. WG Chairs, what's the status, and how can I help?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE