Re: RE: SNMPv3 as MIDCOM protocol: Opinions?

> SNMP[v3] is the Internet standard management protocol (or
> words to that effect).  Other IETF protocols should be
> designed with manageability by SNMPv3 in mind, including
> current era carrier-grade MIB support.

Those were among the arguments that Christian presented in
the Atlanta meeting when he asked that we skip the lengthy
decision process and choose SNMPv3 now.  When we took it to
the mailing list there were sufficient objections that we
couldn't do it.  That's a decision that can be revisited at
any time and I'd be happy to do so.

In the post to which you're responding I'm asking people to
get specific about architectural issues.  The midcom
requirements and framework documents have been finished for
quite some time.  They went through a lengthy development
process, went through WG last call, went through IESG
review, went through IETF last call, went through the RFC
editor's process, and were published as RFCs.  There's been
plenty of opportunity for input before now.  It could very
well be the case that either or both contain some fatal flaw
and need revision, but if that's the case the arguments for
doing so have to be substantive and specific - "That's not
the way I see it" won't cut it, and that's about the level
of objection that we're getting.  

I should also point out that if the argument is that the
current framework is unsuitable for one of the protocols,
it's probably actually the case that the protocol isn't
suitable for the framework.

Melinda