Re: [Rserpool] WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

> I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If
there
> are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend, MIB
> doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> document where there are no interest.

Dear all,

as system administrator of the Institute for Computer Science and
Business Information Systems at the University of Duisburg-Essen, I
maintain RSerPool setups for multiple projects in our university
network. For most tasks of my network administration work, I apply
SNMP-based management software. Since we currently already apply two
different RSerPool implementations - RSPLIB and the FH Münster
implementations -- I see the need for a common MIB definition to avoid
incompatible versions defined by different RSerPool system vendors.
Since the basic RSerPool protocol documents are already RFCs, there is
definitely the need to release a MIB for RSerPool, too.

I had a look at the document draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt. Except for
the missing "opaque transport parameter" issue found by Michael, I have
found no problems in the document.

Kind regards
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Nihad Cosic 
Computer and Network Engineer
University of Duisburg-Essen
Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB)
Ellernstr.29 
45326 Essen, Germany 
Tel: +49 (0) 201 183-7651 
Fax: +49 (0) 201 183-7673 
Mail: cosic@iem.uni-due.de 
PGP-Key http://tdrwww.iem.uni-due.de/mitarbeiter/cosic/pubkey.asc
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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