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

[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.