[Videomgmt] The initial proposal...

"Tendolkar Mohit" <Mohit.Tendolkar@thomson.net> Tue, 27 September 2005 16:50 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKIeW-0002CC-BX; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:50:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EKIeU-0002C0-II for videomgmt@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:49:59 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25135 for <videomgmt@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:49:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dmzraw4.extranet.tce.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EKIlk-0002yr-N1 for videomgmt@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:57:30 -0400
Received: from indyvss3.am.thmulti.com (unknown []) by dmzraw4.extranet.tce.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EF113EE; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:49:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by indyvss3.am.thmulti.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77503488A; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:49:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from indyvss3.am.thmulti.com ([]) by localhost (indyvss3 []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 19113-01-66; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:49:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from indysmailcs01.am.thmulti.com (indysmailcs01.am.thmulti.com []) by indyvss3.am.thmulti.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D0D34104; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:45:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from indysmailbh01.am.thmulti.com ([]) by indysmailcs01.am.thmulti.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:45:57 -0500
Received: from NEVCSMAIL01.am.thmulti.com ([]) by indysmailbh01.am.thmulti.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:45:57 -0500
Received: from BVTNSMAIL01.am.thmulti.com ([]) by NEVCSMAIL01.am.thmulti.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:45:55 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
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 09:45:11 -0700
Message-ID: <3531F1FE12C5B4489D2014F59B46691303E23F76@bvtnsmail01.am.thmulti.com>
Thread-Topic: The initial proposal...
Thread-Index: AcXAh3xJ+3ytpVSnQ+e2pIvDiWpONgC+muJw
From: Tendolkar Mohit <Mohit.Tendolkar@thomson.net>
To: "Ray, Robert" <RobertRay@pesa.com>, videomgmt@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2005 16:45:55.0762 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE17A920:01C5C382]
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at thomson.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [Videomgmt] 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 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?

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
available on the market. I see that the PESA MIBs have been drawn up
starting from mid-2002, so I reckon, there are products already
supporting these MIB modules?

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 proposal.
The PESA MIBs are certainly and without doubt generic and truly useful
MIBs as a starting point, but given the usage of the other standardized
MIBs (ENTITY MIB, for instance) in conjunction with these modules will
imply certain structural changes to the proposed modules. How strong is
PESA on retaining the proposed MIB modules "as is"?


Mohit Tendolkar
Thomson (Grass Valley)

Videomgmt mailing list