RE: Call for Consensus: RAQMON PDU conformance
Andy Bierman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rmonmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 05:17 PM 1/21/2005, David B Harrington wrote: >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. SNMP Transport using Informs is okay. Andy >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 >>