RE: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation

Hi David,

Thanks for keeping me honest ;-)
I reread my message, and see that my wording was ambiguous. 

I did not intend to imply that a representative from SNMP Research was present and made that statement in the EOS WG meeting. There was no representative from SNMP Research in the meeting. I should have phrased my wording differently to say "A representative from SNMP Research told me, in private communication, that they are already working on implementing the draft ..."

I think the following sentence in my mail reflects that I was relaying information: "I made that statement during the meeting ...".

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:14 AM
> To: Harrington, David
> Subject: RE: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation
> 
> 
> HI,
> 
> Who was present from SNMP Research?
> 
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins
> 
> At 09:45 AM 12/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was one of the people representing a vendor dependent on 
> stack vendor implementations. The two third party stacks we 
> use are from SNMP Research and Net-SNMP. A representative 
> from SNMP Research said they are already working on 
> implementing the draft, and a representative from Net-SNMP 
> said they are implementing the draft (surprise, surprise). I 
> made that statement during the meeting in response to Wes's 
> question of whether we'd be willing to ask our stack vendor 
> to implement this.
> >
> >I think I was the one who questioned whether there was 
> benefit, but the concern was whether there was real benefit 
> for my company's **customers**. 
> >
> >The operators have slapped our wrists for not paying 
> adequate attention to end-user needs; we need to consider the 
> real benefit to vendor's customers. I question whether the 
> features being discussed (here and in SMING) provide adequate 
> customer benefit to justify the disruption caused by 
> requiring SNMP stack updates to their deployed products.
> >
> >dbh
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 3:33 PM
> >> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> >> Cc: Glenn Waters; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: IETF 55 EOS WG Minutes and Presentation
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >>>>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:10:41 +0100 , "Wijnen, Bert 
> >> (Bert)" <[email protected]> said:
> >> 
> >> Bert> I came away with:
> >> Bert> - Wes is willing to implement
> >> Bert> - Some vendors would consider it, but would have to 
> >> rely on their stack vendor to
> >> Bert> do the implementation first
> >> Bert> - Some were not sure there was benefit for their company
> >>  
> >> Bert> I did not get a warm feeling at that point. In fact 
> I was quite
> >> Bert> disappointed with the response as to how many want to "help",
> >> Bert> "review", "implement", "use" this technology.
> >>  
> >> Bert> Was that just me?
> >> 
> >> Well, I think I'm a bit more optimistic than that.  The 
> feeling I got
> >> is that the bulking problem is by far the perceived 
> largest problem.
> >> I got the feeling people wanted it, but needed their stack 
> providers
> >> to supply it and may or may not be willing to actually ask 
> their stack
> >> provides for it (which I thought was odd).  There are other vendors
> >> interested in implementing it that I'm aware of (but I 
> can't speak for
> >> them so I won't).
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Wes Hardaker
> >> Network Associates Laboratories
> >> 
> >> 
> 
>