Re: Present day reality of COPS-PR

Sorry. I confused the two mailing lists....

                         Ron


Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 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
>>
> .
>