Re: A non response to: Re: RFCs to Histrionic status

["Karl Auerbach, Empirical Tools and Technologies, 408/427-5280" <[e-mail]>]

 > You may have intended your message merely to be humourous, but I fear
 > others may have read it as a statement about SNMPv2, and thus I feel
 > compelled to respond.

Yes, it was meant to be more humorous than satirical.  But your own
note indicates a rather large gap between your perspective on SNMPv2
and my own.

Overall, I like the SNMPv2 *protocol*.  And by protocol I mean that
part which speaks to the packets themselves bouncing back and forth,
mainly RFC1448.  I think that is a *major* improvement over v1.

And I like the parts of SNMPv2 that improve the accuracy and machine
readability of MIB definitions.  This will vastly improve the ability
for manager stations to comprehend the information which is
available.  In fact, I would like this effort to be expanded.

So far, so good.

But I really think that v2 has gone *extremely* overboard in the area
of administration and security.

 > Yes, there's a total of 417 pages in the 12 documents, but let's be
 > fair - the framework which this set replaces is currently described in
 > 11+ RFCs containing about 230 pages (ignoring nearly 600 pages of
 > MIB documents).  This has not been considered burdensome.

I disagree with your method of counting.  The core SNMP today that is
running is represented by three documents.  To be precise, these:

1213  Management Information Base for network management of TCP/IP-based 
      internets: MIB-II. McCloghrie, K.; Rose, M.T.,eds.  1991 March; 70 p. 
      (Format: TXT=146080 bytes)  (Obsoletes RFC 1158)

1212  Concise MIB definitions. Rose, M.T.; McCloghrie, K.,eds.  1991 March; 
      19 p. (Format: TXT=43579 bytes)

1157  Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Case, J.D.; Fedor, M.; 
      Schoffstall, M.L.; Davin, C.  1990 May; 36 p. (Format: TXT=74894 bytes)
      (Obsoletes RFC 1098)


 > My guess is that there's about 80 pages of completely new material,

I disagree.  The entire administrative framework, ancillary mibs
(e.g. party MIB), security mechanisms, etc are new.

 > Do you think the point about 600 pages of MIBs presents its
 > own problem?

You are refering to the if-it-exists-then-it's-gotta-have-a-mib situation?
That is not relevant to the SNMPv2 discussion.

Given the mass of new material, I found it odd that on the same day
that the RFCs were announced, that the working groups were deemed to
have completed their charters and summarily dissolved, leaving no
effective focus for continued SNMPv2 discussions.

			--karl--