RE: coex draft last call

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the review.

I'll respond to your last point.

The relationship between SNMPv3 and AgentX has been discussed many times. The consensus has been pretty consistent - SNMPv3 documents should not discuss AgentX. 

AgentX is basically a standardized implementation strategy for SNMP agents, and SNMPv3 should not be dependent in any way on that implementation strategy, so SNMPv3-related documents do not discuss AgentX issues. The AgentX protocol may essentially be SNMPv2 in a different guise, but it is definitely not SNMPv2. I believe it is out-of-scope for this document and for this WG.

SNMPv3 proxy is a very narrowly-scoped version of proxy; the RFC that defines it goes to great length to make that point. There are many many types of proxies. SNMPv3 discusses only one of those types of proxy, largely as a proof-of-concept for the idea that non-traditional SNMP "applications" can be supported within the RFC3411 architecture. AgentX is a different type of proxy, and definitely out-of-scope for the SNMPv3 WG.

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Shield [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:08 AM
> To: [email protected] (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: coex draft last call 
> 
>    One final issue:
> Is it worth saying something about AgentX in all this?  The AgentX
> protocol operations are essentially SNMPv2 in a different guise,
> so an AgentX master agent could be viewed as a sort of proxy.
> Is it worthing saying something along these lines?
>    Or is it really too late to consider this properly?
>