Re: Call for censensus on path forward

[Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Hi -

> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020921131326.01f0c878@mail.AppliedSNMP.com>
> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020921131326.01f0c878@mail.AppliedSNMP.com> (Bob
>  Natale's message of "Sat, 21 Sep 2002 14:27:36 -0400")
> Message-ID: <sd8z1s1ti1.fsf@wanderer.hardakers.net>
> To: Bob Natale <Bob.Natale@appliedsnmp.com>
> Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>,
>         Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>, eos@ops.ietf.org,
>         wide-netman@cysols.com
> Subject: Re: Call for censensus on path forward
> From: Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:54:46 -0700
...
> Interesting.  So, you generally disagree with the reasons behind the
> chartering if both the EoS working group and the SMIng working group?
> 
> (on a side note, have you read some of the operator-requirements
> documents?)
...

Perhaps this is why you raise it in a side note, but...

I really don't see how the eos and the sming work (individually
or in concert) directly address the operator requirements,
no matter how interesting or valuable this work may be in
its own right.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------