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,

I am working with RSerPool for some research in the area of Network
Management particularly with regard to IPFIX. I think it is important to
define a specific common MIB for RSerPool. Without a MIB institutions
who work with RSerPool will define their own MIB, which leads to
incompatibility and inconsistency. Since the RSerPool core documents are
RFC now, I see the need that the MIB document proceeds to RFC too. I
agree with the opinion mentioned by Michael, that the Opaque transport
parameter is missing, else the draft is ok.

	Best regards,

	Jobin

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Dipl.-Wirt.-Inf. Jobin Pulinthanath
	Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems
	University of Duisburg-Essen
	Germany
	E-Mail: jp@iem.uni-due.de
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
rserpool@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool