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

Dan,
 
For a moment I want to focus on getting the WG to understand the need
for standardization of the proposed features.
 
I want to seek WG help in deciding either for the new standard or
extending the existing standard. 
 
Regards,
Shailaja.  

>>> "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]> 3/18/2004 7:49:00 PM
>>>

... and this brings exactly the two issues that I am trying to point
to:
as at least a partial solution exists to the problems that your I-D
tries to solve, do the additional functionality and optimizations
justify new standards work? assuming the answer is yes to the above,
should we not consider rather extending the existing RMON design, and
try to ensure to the possible extend backwards compatibility to existing
RMON MIBs? 
Regards,Dan-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Shailaja Yadawad
Sent: 18 March, 2004 12:40 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: RE: [Disman] Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-yadawad-disman-ahcf-00.txt


Dan,
 
>I was not going that far, and actually I did not have the expression
MIB in mind. 

Expression MIB can be modified based on some of our features.

>What I am seeing are mechanisms like RMON alarm and usrHistory being
reinvented, and >objects like ituSeverity from the Alarm MIB being
duplicated.

you are correct that our draft contains object definition similar to
that of  RMON alarm and usrHistory but with additional features and
changes.
 
Regards,
Shailaja.