[Videomgmt] RE: The initial proposal...

"Ray, Robert" <RobertRay@pesa.com> Tue, 27 September 2005 17:08 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKIwn-0006pc-PR; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:08:53 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKIwm-0006pX-JR for videomgmt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:08:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA25812 for <videomgmt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.pesa.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EKJ43-0003NS-I1 for videomgmt@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:16:24 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:08:34 -0500
Message-ID: <D9D369D05EDF2F498B0FB6357C3BB9972E1126@exchange.hsv.pesa.com>
Thread-Topic: The initial proposal...
Thread-Index: AcXAh3xJ+3ytpVSnQ+e2pIvDiWpONgC+muJwAAB6JCA=
From: "Ray, Robert" <RobertRay@pesa.com>
To: Tendolkar Mohit <Mohit.Tendolkar@thomson.net>, videomgmt@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Videomgmt] RE: The initial proposal...
X-BeenThere: videomgmt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB development for the Video Industry <videomgmt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/videomgmt>, <mailto:videomgmt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/videomgmt>
List-Post: <mailto:videomgmt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:videomgmt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/videomgmt>, <mailto:videomgmt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: videomgmt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: videomgmt-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Mohit.

Responses inline...

Bob Ray


From: Tendolkar Mohit [mailto:Mohit.Tendolkar@thomson.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:45 AM
To: Ray, Robert; videomgmt@ietf.org
Subject: The initial proposal...

>Hi Ray,
>Before we proceed to the MIB specific details, could you please 
>clarify whether PESA is willing to update portions of its initial 
>proposal to accommodate other existing IETF MIBs?

PESA is committed to this effort and hold no reservations about 
revising our products to support these efforts.  As a programmer, I do 
like what I did (wrt the three MIBs) but am by no means wedded to them.
I welcome improvements and interoperability.  I believe our customers 
would welcome that as well.  Even if it means starting from scratch.

>The reason I am asking this is based on previous experiences, vendors 
>wanted to "standardize" their MIB efforts "as is" without allowing 
>significant updates to their proposals based on recommended or existing

>standards because it would "break" their implementations already
>on the market. I see that the PESA MIBs have been drawn up starting for

>mid-2002, so I reckon, there are products already supporting these MIB 

Yes, PESA is shipping products that support the MIBs.  Technically,
We have no problem supporting multiple MIBs in one agent.  If we (the
list and
possible working group) devise one or more standardized MIBs which works

across multiple vendors, it would exist in a different branch (as it
have IANA-assigned identifiers, etc.).  We (PESA) would simply add
subtree to our agent (of course, there may be some instrumentation
but that's how we programmers earn our keep!)

>So before we spend the time and effort in drawing up a true open MIB, 
>it now becomes important to understand the stance of the initial
>The PESA MIBs are certainly and without doubt generic and truly useful
>but given the usage of the ENTITY MIB (for instance) in conjunction
>these modules will imply certain structural changes to the proposed
>How strong is PESA on retaining the proposed MIB "as is"?

The stance is as I've said: the MIBs are simply placeholders, a
start, that could be reamed asunder by the advancements and concerns of
open working group.  And I would welcome such involvement.  Truly.  I
value my
good name (such as it is) too much to try anything less.  Further, it
would be 
transparent to the IETF Area Directors and we would never get anything

Videomgmt mailing list