RE: Call for Consensus: RAQMON PDU conformance

Hi,

The first and fourth points seem incongruous in a standards-track
document.
If you want the first, then the fourth point should probably be
eliminated.
If you want the fourth, then the first (and implictly the third and
fourth) should be eliminated.
I don't think it makes sense to try to have it both ways in a WG
standards-track document.

Publishing the SNMP approach in an experimental or informational
document would make more sense than making it part of a
standards-track document.
There is potential value in using the SNMP approach where SNMP is
already present, with warnings, so the IESG could permit this to be
published even though it proposes an alternative to an IETF standard.

David Harrington
[email protected]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 11:58 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [RMONMIB] Call for Consensus: RAQMON PDU conformance
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I want to confirm with the WG that the recent compromise
> reached on the mailing list is acceptable.  
> 
> In summary:
>   - SNMP Transport will remain in RAQMON
>   - RRC MUST implement TCP transport
>   - RRC MAY implement SNMP transport
>   - SNMP Trap transport is NOT RECOMMENDED
> 
> If there are any objections to this decision, please raise
> them on the WG mailing list by January 28, 2005.
> 
> Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RMONMIB mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmonmib
>