Re: Proposal cutoff deadline September 15

Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.eos
Organization Cyber Solutions Inc.
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Though Time-based aggregation (www.ietf.org/draft-glenn-mo-taggr-mib-00.txt)
is bundled together with the MO aggregation proposal, it is a separate issue
altogether.
We need a MIB for sampling an MO instance at very small intervals (millisecs ?)
AND hauling the values across the network using the good old simple "snmp-get"
for an online, near-realtime display of the MO instances time-development at
very high time-resolution { packets, octets, errors etc. at millisec intervals}.

Glenn M Keeni


Glenn Waters wrote:
> Not that a reminder is necessary, but proposals are due by Monday.
> 
> The three proposals currently on the table are:
> 
> 1. Dave Shield's Extended Capability Negotiation
>    www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shield-eos-capabilities-00.txt
> 
> 2. Wes Hardaker's Object Oriented PDUs for SNMP
>    www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hardaker-eos-oops-00.txt
>    (soon to be -01)
> 
> 3. Glenn Mansfield Keeni's Managed Object / Aggregation MIB modules
>    www.ietf.org/draft-glenn-mo-aggr-mib-01.txt
>    www.ietf.org/draft-glenn-mo-taggr-mib-00.txt
> 
> The WG needs to come to consensus on path forward from here.
> 
> I propose that we select one of the three solutions listed above as the 
> one solution that the WG will focus on for development.
> 
> The question that I plan on asking on Monday is:
> 
> Which of proposals 1, 2, or 3 do you think that the WG should pursue to 
> focus in on the work items in the charter?
> 
> Is there any discussion around the question?
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.