Re: Present day reality of COPS-PR

Let us move this discussion to OPSAWG where a proposal was made in
Stockholm on this respect. We need a volunteer to write the RFC. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 6:55 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: OPS Area (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Speaking as an individual contributor, I think that your 
> analysis is on target. Speaking as AD, I would support a 
> motion to move the COPS documents to HISTORIC.
> 
>                                 Ron
> 
> 
> Paul Duffy wrote:
> > Folks,
> > 
> > I recently had to do a quick eval re: COPS-PR viability.  Please 
> > correct as needed, and thanks for your input.
> > 
> > -----------
> > 
> > COPS-PR seems a solution that was looking for a problem.  It never 
> > really took off, for the following reasons....
> > 
> > - most, if not all, of what could be done with COPS-PR/PIBs can be 
> > done with SNMP/MIBs. To do both is significant duplicated effort.
> > 
> > - operators don't want binary PIBs, prefer ASCII based 
> CLI-type interfaces.
> > 
> > - key players (who?) withdrew from COPS-PR and PIB 
> approach, claiming 
> > there was no market.
> > 
> > - IETF has since gone down the path of Netconf and started 
> discussion 
> > to make COPS-PR historical.
> > 
> > - there are few, if any, significant deployments.
> > 
> > AFAIK, there is minimal commercial or open source support.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPS-AREA mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>