Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami <martillo@nero.clearpoint.com> Fri, 19 February 1993 17:38 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10108; 19 Feb 93 12:38 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10104; 19 Feb 93 12:38 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24712; 19 Feb 93 12:38 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10083; 19 Feb 93 12:38 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10077; 19 Feb 93 12:38 EST
Received: from nero.clearpoint.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24693; 19 Feb 93 12:38 EST
Received: by nero.clearpoint.com (4.1/1.34) id AA05181; Tue, 2 Feb 93 03:41:07 EST
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1993 03:41:07 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami <martillo@nero.clearpoint.com>
Message-Id: <9302020841.AA05181@nero.clearpoint.com>
To: ietf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, snmp-sec-dev@tis.com, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp@psi.com

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.snmp
Path: nighthawk.clearpoint.com!nero!martillo
From: martillo@nero.clearpoint.com (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami)
Subject: Re: What NOC's support SMP?
Message-ID: <1993Jan30.165240.15098@nighthawk.clearpoint.com>
Sender: usenet@nighthawk.clearpoint.com (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: nero.clearpoint.com
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass.
References: <C1MEr7.8Iq@apertus.com> <karl.9.728359086@empirical.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 16:52:40 GMT

In article <karl.9.728359086@empirical.com> karl@empirical.com (Karl Auerbach) writes:

>>We are using SNMP research's agent program on our system and have just
>>received a release from them that is SMP/SNMP release 2 based.

>SMP is a dead horse.  SNMPv2 is undergoing final (hopefully) review by the 
>IETF working groups on SNMP and security.  (SNMPv2 is actually a blend of 
>two different standards.)  SNMPv2 is based on SMP, but a number of changes 
>have been made.

>			--karl--

SNMPv2 is basically a dog with fleas.  One can hope it will soon be a
dead dog with fleas.  The behavior of the proponents of SNMPv2 has
basically been reprehensible.  Just check out some of the discussion
in the SNMP mailing list.

The approach taken by the designers of SNMPv2 is basically naive and
retrograde.

The approach is analogous to saying IP has inadequacies.  It does not
support end-to-end reliable sequenced transport, therefore we must
build such functionality into IP.

In fact the correct approach was to build a TCP layer on top of IP.  A
similar approach would have been appropriate for adding new management
functionality.

So why is the attrocity of SNMPv2 being foisted on the Internet
community?

Well, suppose you had a company whose raison d'e^tre was to provide
SNMP agents, and the world was realizing SNMP just wasn't rocket
science?

Suppose you made money writing a book on SNMP and wanted to come out
with a second edition?

Have people ever heard of Soderblom and the Token Ring patent or DEC
and the 48 bit CRC patent application?

Let's all look up the word profiteering in the dictionary.

-- 
Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami

The article represents noone's opinions other than the author's.
  •   Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami