Re: Call for censensus on path forward

At 05:01 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
>  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]
>
>Hi -
>>> (snip)
>Perhaps this is why you raise it in a side note, but...
>
>I really don't see how the eos and the sming work (individually
>or in concert) directly address the operator requirements,
>no matter how interesting or valuable this work may be in
>its own right.


There are many operator requirements to consider.
If you are talking about configuration (single or multiple boxes)
then I agree that sming and eos are not currently chartered
to meet these needs. (That's why I suggested we need an stdconf wg).

If you're talking about monitoring, then many operators have expressed
a need to have vendors actually implement MIBs in a timely and
consistent manner.  I believe sming and eos are (potentially)
making some progress in reducing the complexity and development costs
in this area.


> ------------------------------------------------------
> Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
> [email protected]  2141 North First Street
> Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
> ------------------------------------------------------
> My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
> ------------------------------------------------------

Andy