Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

Dear Magnus,

in our company DH Datentechnik, we actively deploy RSerPool for workload
distribution in a SimProcTC-based simulation pool. For our
administration, we strongly rely on SNMP-based tools. Having the
possibility to also administer different RSerPool systems would be a
great benefit for reducing our non-SNMP administration overhead.

I have reviewed the draft document draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt and
found - except for the missing opaque transport parameter mentioned by
Michael T=FCxen - no problems. Since the core RSerPool documents are RFCs
now, I think it is quite useful to also bring the MIB document to RFC
soon. Otherwise, I see the problem that different RSerPool-based systems
use incompatible MIBs - which should be avoided.


-- =


Regards,

Dirk Hoffstadt

------------------------------------------------------------------
M.Sc. Dirk Hoffstadt
DH Datentechnik
45219 Essen
Germany
E-Mail: [email protected]
Internet:  http://www.dhdt.de
PGP-PublicKey: https://dhdt.de/private/dirkhoffstadt_pubpgp.asc
------------------------------------------------------------------