IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dirk Hoffstadt <hoffstadt@dhdt.de> Fri, 31 October 2008 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rserpool-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rserpool-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rserpool-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084DA3A6BC8; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rserpool@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rserpool@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1033A6982 for <rserpool@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.16
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.16 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.409, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mD78pKjvf2Et for <rserpool@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8BF93A67AB for <rserpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [132.252.151.243] ([132.252.151.243]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKwtQ-1KvZjh40RZ-0007R6; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:47:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4909D6F8.404@dhdt.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:47:04 +0100
From: Dirk Hoffstadt <hoffstadt@dhdt.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rserpool@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/XkrwodNslkwycbGfSyC+rNhanp0JLtRVPGHw f+cU46XdEF8B1/2CBDzV8Pjz6/Gd2xRktHALhGEsFWph8pof7f 37BGW+0zJ5Y77xg8v1l+xxJfgHJ9Wnh
Subject: Re: [Rserpool] WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft
X-BeenThere: rserpool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Reliable Server Pooling <rserpool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool>, <mailto:rserpool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/rserpool>
List-Post: <mailto:rserpool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rserpool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool>, <mailto:rserpool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: rserpool-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rserpool-bounces@ietf.org

Dear Magnus,

in our company DH Datentechnik, we actively deploy RSerPool for workload
distribution in a SimProcTC-based simulation pool. For our
administration, we strongly rely on SNMP-based tools. Having the
possibility to also administer different RSerPool systems would be a
great benefit for reducing our non-SNMP administration overhead.

I have reviewed the draft document draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt and
found - except for the missing opaque transport parameter mentioned by
Michael Tüxen - no problems. Since the core RSerPool documents are RFCs
now, I think it is quite useful to also bring the MIB document to RFC
soon. Otherwise, I see the problem that different RSerPool-based systems
use incompatible MIBs - which should be avoided.


-- 

Regards,

Dirk Hoffstadt

------------------------------------------------------------------
M.Sc. Dirk Hoffstadt
DH Datentechnik
45219 Essen
Germany
E-Mail: hoffstadt@dhdt.de
Internet:  http://www.dhdt.de
PGP-PublicKey: https://dhdt.de/private/dirkhoffstadt_pubpgp.asc
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email