Re: Status of the WG

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> Regardless of whether or not SMIv3 goes forward, the effort to create
> a SMIv2.1 would be well worth it.  I don't think it's a huge amount of
> work to fix the known problems and thus shouldn't even detract
> potential development of SMIv3 in the first place.

Just thought I would share an interesting (albiet not scientific or
particularly well-representative) statistic garnered from a survey I have
been conducting of users downloading Muonics' evaluation software.

Of those reporting and checking features they would be most interested in
for future versions, SMIng/SMI-DS support was ranked #7 (out of a possible
13, with 1 being the least desired), with a score of 16% that of the most
desired feature.  If you discount features that are about to be released
or supported in one form or another, it scores in at 47% - 74% that of the
most desired feature(s).  This is out of a sample size of approximately
220 respondants for the time period examined.

This is, of course, out of features that users/evaluators would like to
see in Muonics' products, and not a survey of features people would like
in SNMP or SMI in general.  So these aren't numbers that one should put a
whole lot of weight on in determining whether or not SMIv3 or SMIv2.1
should go forward.  However, I thought it was interesting to consider and
be aware of nonetheless given the nature of the product in question.

--
Michael Kirkham
www.muonics.com