RE: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-yadawad-disman-ahcf-00.txt

Dan
 
>I have read the draft carefully, I think that I understand it better
now, and I appreciate what >you are trying to achieve. I should point
however, that the problems that you are dealing with >have solutions in
other MIB modules, sometimes even multiple solutions as you are yourself
>pointing. An optimization may be a good thing for a certain class of
applications and devices, >but a sound discussion is needed to prove
that this is an important enough problem to deserve >a new piece of
standardization in the IETF.
 
The draft proposal is  trying to solve a important problems associated
with the history collection. 
The user will in most probability will face these problems like
persistent index ( as Andy mentioned) and need for automatic instance
management and easy configurations during history collection activity.
It is my belief that standardization of such features will help users.
 
 
>What do you suggest that we do with this? Are you suggesting that we
deprecate the relevant >MIB groups in RMON and RMON-2 and replace them
by new optimized MIB groups on the lines >of your proposal? Or should we
standardize a new method for user history with instance >filtering, and
applying alarms to history with lesser MIB objects in addition to
existing RMON >standards?  
 
I feel that proposed features needs a standardization. As mentioned in
our draft, deprecating the relevant RMON-2 MIB groups will pose a
backward compatibility issue  of previously collected history data to
the user and so creating a new standard is a good idea. 
 
 
Regards,
Shailaja.