Re: Present day reality of COPS-PR

I am not really interested to get involved too deeply in this discussion,
certainly not at the level of detail that David does in his repsonse to Paul.

But I would like to comment on one statement from David Harrington,
namely:

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Harrington 
  To: [email protected] ; 'OPS Area (E-mail)' 
  Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR


  Hi,

  comments inline. I can help with the RFC. here's a start ... ;-)

  > 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.

  That is true, and that is what really killed it in IETF, where there
  was a policy that all WGs were expected to "write a MIB" to make their
  protoocls manageable. The IESG decided that they could not insist that
  WGs duplicate effort by writing both a MIB and a PIB, but SNMP could
  work with PIBs (and it would not have been easy to make that work), so
  just "write a PIB" for both COPS-PR and SNMP usage was not a viable
  option either.

This gives the impression that the IESG decided this on her own. The IESG did collect
IETF input in various ways (BOF, info-gathering meetings, plenary discussion etc)
and based on the input concluded that there was (albeit very rough) consensus to not 
support PIB Modules on the standards track.

Bert

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area