RE: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?

Hi,

Message #1: As SNMPv3 co-chair.

Let me inform the SNMPv3 working about the fact that SNMP has been proposed as a candidate for the Middlebox Communications protocol. This has been mentioned on the mailing list in the past.

RFC3303 and 3304 describe the MIDCOM architecture and requirements.

The evaluation is being done against a checklist of requirements specified in RFC3304.
An evaluation of SNMPv3 versus MIDCOM requirements, done by Juergen Quittek and I, can be found in draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval-06.txt.

Juergen did an earlier evaluation of SNMP (all versions) in draft-quittek-midcom-snmp-eval-00.txt

It would be helpful if the people in the WG reviewed the requirements and analyses and contributed any comments to the process.

---
David Harrington            
[email protected]           
co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:18 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>> Martin Stiemerling writes:
> 
> Martin> as you may have heard: the MIDCOM WG is currently doing a
> Martin> protocol evaluation which protocol to use as the MIDCOM
> Martin> protocol. SNMPv3 is amongst these candidates (diameter,
> Martin> cops(-pr), megaco).  Would you strongly recommend to use
> Martin> SNMPv3 as the MIDCOM protocol without having a bad feeling?
> 
> Feeling is one dimension in a multi-dimensional space. And we all know
> that SNMP has a reputation which is kind of special.
> 
> Anyway, it usually makes sense to also look at the functional
> requirements and the features offered by a protocol if you are not
> completely driven by feelings. Are the MIDCOM requirements spelled out
> somewhere?
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    
> <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>
> 
> 
>