[OPS-NM] RE: SNMP MIBs and IETF standards track work

Obviously my statement needs clarification. I was responding to the
following text by Randy

> > However, I believe that MIB modules and support for SNMP should 
> > continue to be required as a condition of IETF standards-track 
> > advancement until suitable alternative solutions are completed and 
> > available.
> ...

And referring to the fact that the MIB documents themselves seldom if
never get beyond Proposed Standard stage ('advance on the
standards-track') nowadays. 

But maybe I was the one who mis-understood Randy's intention? 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natale, Bob [mailto:RNATALE@mitre.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:33 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: MIB Doctors; ops-nm@ietf.org
> Subject: SNMP MIBs and IETF standards track work
> 
> 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