RE: RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement forconfigurationby SNMP

=20
=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:03 PM
> To: 'MIB Doctors'; [email protected]
> Cc: 'Mark Townsley'
> Subject: Re: [OPS-NM] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement=20
> forconfigurationby SNMP=20
>=20
> Hi -
>=20
> > From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
> > To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <[email protected]>; "'MIB Doctors'"=20
> > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "'Mark Townsley'" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:34 AM
> > Subject: [OPS-NM] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement for=20
> > configurationby SNMP
> ...
> > Since possible alternatives are on the horizon, and the IETF=20
> > management framework has always permitted the support for=20
> alternative=20
> > protocols for carrying MIB module data, I suggest that any=20
> long-lived=20
> > requirements section RECOMMEND, but not REQUIRE, SNMP so that=20
> > alternative protocols could be used in the future to meet these=20
> > management functionality requirements.
> >=20
> > However, I believe that MIB modules and support for SNMP should=20
> > continue to be required as a condition of IETF standards-track=20
> > advancement until suitable alternative solutions are completed and=20
> > available.
> ...
>=20
> I'm having trouble fitting these two paragraphs together.
> The first is consistent with the changes suggested, but the=20
> second is a strong argument against making those changes.
>=20
> Randy

I believe that there is no real problem here, as the number of MIB
documents that I saw advancing on the standards-track lately is as low
as zero.=20

Dan


_______________________________________________
OPS-NM mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm