[OPS-NM] SNMP MIBs and IETF standards track work
"Natale, Bob" <RNATALE@mitre.org> Tue, 07 November 2006 18:33 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhVky-0006vS-QO; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:33:08 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhVkw-0006uK-Tw; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:33:06 -0500
Received: from smtpproxy1.mitre.org ([192.160.51.76] helo=smtp-bedford.mitre.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhVkt-0003Hg-KC; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:33:06 -0500
Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id kA7IX3ho009357; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:33:03 -0500
Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FB0BF00; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:33:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imcfe2.MITRE.ORG (imcfe2.mitre.org [129.83.29.4]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kA7IX2HK009341; Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:33:03 -0500
Received: from IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.164]) by imcfe2.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:33:02 -0500
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:32:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F0161DE63@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0BAC6AA3@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-topic: SNMP MIBs and IETF standards track work
Thread-index: AccB19nh+xB1axXwRmaKuTS8uyhkNAAOoOhgACEffDA=
From: "Natale, Bob" <RNATALE@mitre.org>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2006 18:33:02.0107 (UTC) FILETIME=[283496B0:01C7029B]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc: MIB Doctors <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, ops-nm@ietf.org
Subject: [OPS-NM] SNMP MIBs and IETF standards track work
X-BeenThere: ops-nm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPS Area NM e-mail list <ops-nm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm>, <mailto:ops-nm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ops-nm>
List-Post: <mailto:ops-nm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ops-nm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm>, <mailto:ops-nm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ops-nm-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:18 PM > ... > I believe that there is no real problem here, as the number of MIB > documents that I saw advancing on the standards-track lately is as low > as zero. Hmmm. Perhaps I am mis-interpreting your statement above, but a quick scan of the I-D database for anything with "mib" in the title returns 71 active entries. A fair number of those appear to be intended for the standards track. A large percentage of the remainder, IMHO, probably should be. A number of these MIBs seem to address current/important/exciting capabilities. Perhaps we in the O&M Area have not been as enthusiastic and energetic about promoting standard MIBs in the recent past as we were at one time...? [FWIW: It has been my view for a long time -- clearly unsupported by community consensus -- that "richer" MIBs are the missing ingredient to continuing and expanding the success of SNMP. Richer MIBs would leverage the cumulative effects of Moore's Law, control plane evolution, and community experience via more capable SNMP agents that would focus on "higher-order" management constructs (such as templates, profiles, policies, services, operations, and so forth) exposed via those MIBs.] I recognize (and contribute to, in non-IETF venues) the multi-protocol world we live and work in today...it is a promising but clearly unsettled environment. In the meantime (and as Randy suggested), critical networks need solid interoperable management. That SNMP is still a contender for that role is more a testament to its early strengths and vast deployment than to any recent shepherding on our part. True, both of those pluses are fast diminishing in the marketplace. Whether we should just let that happen without a viable successor in place is, IMHO, an important matter for the community to decide. Perhaps we have already decided (in the affirmative) by default...? Cheers, BobN _______________________________________________ OPS-NM mailing list OPS-NM@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm
- [OPS-NM] SNMP MIBs and IETF standards track work Natale, Bob
- RE: [OPS-NM] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirem… David B Harrington
- RE: [OPS-NM] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirem… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)