Re: AgentX WG: New work items or close?

Hi Bob- my comments and answers are inline...\\Mark

Bob Natale wrote:
> 
> At 4/6/2002:05:02 PM, Mark Ellison wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> >I support your list of possible AgentX work items.
> 
> Ok...good...we'll have to see if this feedback from
> you and the comments from Wes, thus far, can be
> turned into sufficient momentum to keep the WG open.
> It's too bad that Wes, Dave Shield, and John Naylon
> from the NET-SNMP list can come back soon with some
> more specifics re the kinds of things they'd like
> the WG to work on.

Well, by the time Dave and John are back, I'll be gone for the NOMS
conference, so I'm wondering if a one week period for comment is
sufficient to obtain the feedback we seek?

> >I'm wondering if the original agenda item, "(optional) a programmatic
> >interface to the services offered by that protocol" is officially
> >dropped.  I don't know this is necessary.  Possibly others will have a
> >different perspective?
> 
> Well, it has not been officially dropped.  On the
> other hand, there has not been a lot of push for
> completing that work item coming from the WG.  When
> you say that you "don't know this necessary", do you
> mean you don't know whether it's necessary to drop
> it or retain it?
> 

I don't think it is necessary to work on an AgentX API.  On the one
hand, it would be nice to have a consistent library mechanism across
platforms (and languages ??) supporting AgentX.  However, the API for
AgentX is but one of many pieces a subagent developer must port between
systems.  So feel its best to limit specification at the message level
for now.


> To some extent, having the NET-SNMP and AgentPP groups
> worked out their API implementations may be a good
> thing here:  Do any AgentX developers who may have
> used either or both of those APIs see a need to
> standardize this technology in the IETF?  If you
> have an opinion on that, I would appreciate hearing
> it soon.


I also hope folks having opinions will post to this list!

> >Also, with respect to work in the EOS and SMIng WG-  I think it best not
> >to take on any dditional AgentX work items until the EOS and SMIng work
> >product progresses beyond internet-draft.
> 
> Yeah, I agree...good point.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BobN
> 

Thanks Bob!

Regards,

Mark