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

[Pete Grillo <[e-mail]>]

I find this thread somewhat humorous.  Are you guys really out there
counting pages?  

keep smiling,
pete

>DATE:   Thu, 6 May 93 14:29:06 PDT
>FROM:   Keith McCloghrie <[e-mail]>
>
>Karl,
>
>> But I really think that v2 has gone *extremely* overboard in the area
>> of administration and security.
> 
>As compared to the Proposed standards: RFCs 1351/1352/1353, which it
>replaces, SNMPv2 simplifies admin 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:
> 
>Yes, I should have been more precise: the 12 new documents provide the
>equivalent information for SNMPv2, as provided by 11+ older RFCs for
>SNMPv1: about 6 pages of 1213, and all of 1155, 1157, 1212, 1215, 1303,
>1351, 1352, 1353, 1418, 1419, 1420.  Not all of those older RFCs were
>on the standards track; their replacements in SNMPv2 are.
>
>>  > 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.
> 
>On the contrary, the security mechanisms, admin framework, and the
>party MIB are variations on 9-month old Proposed Standards.  Previous
>versions of these documents have been discussed in IETF working-group
>meetings for the past 3 years.  In fact, I recall updating the drafts
>with some of your ideas in (I think) 1990.
>
>Keith.