Re: the future of SNMP

I don't see how tweaks to the MIBs are going to solve a lot of the
issues. 

IMHO, SNMPCONF effectively did all the MIB work needed to deal
specifically with provisioning large numbers of similar sets of
information (I'm talking about the "templating" mechanisms buried in
draft-ietf-snmpconf-diffpolicy-05.txt, not the PM language from
draft-ietf-snmpconf-pm-12.txt which is orthogonal): the work done so far
needs to be generalised of course. But the protocol itself needs to grow
up in some of the ways that Carl, Wes, Dinakaran and others have
suggested over the last 10 years.

Andrew Smith


-------------------------------------------

I believe that there is some need to do some additional protocol work to
handle selective get/walk and configuration.

Carl

Wes Hardaker wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:30:25 -0700, Bruce Shaw <[email protected]>
said:
            
Bruce> Yes.  My primary concern was that I don't want SNMP to fall by
Bruce> the wayside - some of us still want to use it.

I think Bert's more specific question was: do you want to see further
development in the protocol itself, or just in the MIBs that are
transferred over the protocol