Re: v1->v2 SMIs

Robert Snyder <snyder@cisco.com> Tue, 01 March 1994 02:38 UTC

Message-Id: <199403010102.AA04118@dustbin.cisco.com>
To: Joachim Martillo <martillo@thurifer.harvard.edu>
Cc: snmp@psi.com, snmpv2@magellan.tis.com, wbn@merit.edu
Subject: Re: v1->v2 SMIs
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Feb 94 17:00:31 EST." <9402282200.AA02797@thurifer>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 17:01:30 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Robert Snyder <snyder@cisco.com>

I know I am risking the start of yet another long thread, but I can't
help myself.

>    Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 22:06:02 -0500
>    From: Bill Norton <wbn@merit.edu>
> 
>    I have a few questions.  At the last IETF, Marshall suggested
>    that if SNMPv2
>    didn't appear to be catching on, then a new proposal might have to be 
>    considered (I think at this point he threw a slide up in the air).  Back
>    to the drawing board so to speak.
> 
>    If this occurs, as a community, we are stuck with SNMPv2 compliant MIBs,
>    with no SNMPv2.  Seems like a real bad situation.   Perhaps worse than 
>    the SNMPv1->Secure SNMP->SNMPvx transition originally intended 
>    to be avoided.

Most of your email assumes that Bill has accurately represented what
Marshall said.  Unfortunately I do not beleive that Bill has presented
Marshalls message in the spirit it was intended.  I believe that
Marshall was really trying to say that v2 can not advance on the
standards track without more implemention experience.

I wont get into your reasons for why vendors have not delivered
implemenations yet because I can only represent what one vendor is doing
and it's customer's needs.  Based on that information though, your
thoughts do not represent reality, but like I said I only represent one
customer base and one vendor and I have code that awaits my return.

Robert
cisco eng

Re: v1->v2 SMIs Robert Snyder
Re: v1->v2 SMIs Fred Baker