[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate
In the e,mail below, Dave elaborates and then asks:
> I am saying I don't understand the purpose of suddenly adding
> this "Internet-Standard" stuff into the SNMP-specific documents.
> Why is this here?
I think I changed to that when Juergen asked the question about the
fact that we now have only one ptr, namely to RFC2570bis, and the
title of that document is:
Introduction and Applicability Statements
for the Internet-Standard Management Framework
So that made me think it makes sense.
I have no marketing intentions.
Any other opinions on these potential titles for the MIB boiler plate
section? The titles under consideration:
- The SNMP Management Framework
- The Internet-Standard Management Framework
- The Internet-Standard SNMP Management Framework
Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington, David [mailto:dbh@enterasys.com]
Sent: maandag 11 november 2002 20:58
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate
Hi Bert,
I can live with the title either way. I prefer "The SNMP Management Framework"
I don't see why the "Internet-Standard" adjective is required. Prior to advancement, we didn't refer to this as "The Internet-Draft-Standard SNMP Management Framework". I don't believe we referred to SNMPv1 as "The Internet-Standard SNMP Management Framework". We don't refer to RMON as "The Internet-Standard Remote Monitoring MIB". Why are we doing it for SNMPv3? Is this marketing?
Does this cross the line of specifying that this is a standard, something that should be reserved for STD1?
If we are including this to impress upon people that there is one and only one IETF standard for management frameworks, then why do we have so many working groups defining approaches that do not necessarily comply with the standard? I recall a meeting called by you a couple years ago where you took the WG chairs to task for not supporting each others' efforts better, for reinventing wheels that were already standardized, and so on. If the goal is to say that there is one and only one management framework that is standard and people should follow it, then are the other WGs being held accountable to be compliant with this Internet-Standard?
Understand, this is not a political thing arguing that the other WGs should not be created or supported. I am saying I don't understand the purpose of suddenly adding this "Internet-Standard" stuff into the SNMP-specific documents. Why is this here?
dbh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 2:20 PM
> To: Harrington, David
> Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate
>
>
> I see your point.
> But we are now (basically) only refering to the SNMPv3 materials.
> So in terms of SNMP, this is the Internet-Standard. If we ever
> would get a new version of SNMP, then we probably need to adapt
> the boilerplate again.
>
> So how about:
>
> The Internet-Standard SNMP Management Framework
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harrington, David [mailto:dbh@enterasys.com]
> Sent: maandag 11 november 2002 19:04
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate
>
>
> Hi,
> I have some concerns about the the "Internet-Standard
> Management Framework" versus "The SNMP Management Framework" issue.
> 1) RFC2571 "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management
> Frameworks" explicitly uses the "An" in the title in
> recognition of the fact that additional management frameworks
> may exist, and in particular additional SNMP management frameworks.
> 2) For the past few years, SNMP has been the *only*
> IETF-approved management framework. But over the past two
> years or so, a number of other management frameworks that are
> not designed to completetly fit within the
> SNMP/Internet-Standard Management Framework have been under
> development by the IETF. If multiple management frameworks
> are likely to exist in the future, and might become
> additional internet standard management frameworks, then
> should we be specifying that SNMP is "An" Internet-Standard
> management framework, and reflecting that in the boilerplate?
> 3) As mentioned in the boilerplate discussions, and as
> pointed out in the new boilerplate, mibs are usually used
> with SNMP. This implies that other protocols could be used to
> access mibs.
> I think the section title should be "The SNMP Management
> Framework" unless the ADs and the IESG intend to constrain
> all (foreseeable) future management to fit within the
> "Internet-Standard" Management Framework. Otherwise, we will
> be supporting the old adage, "standards are great, everybody
> should have one."
> dbh
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:57 AM
> > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate
> >
> >
> > Juergen writes
> > > Just a nit:
> > >
> > > Is the section title "The SNMP Management Framework" still
> > the correct
> > > name or are we now calling the section the "Internet-Standard
> > > Management Framework" as the first sentence and reference
> RFC2570bis
> > > seem to imply? From a stylisitic point, it is not really
> good to use
> > > an acronym in a section header before it is actually introduced.
> > >
> >
> > I can live with changing the title of the boilerplate section
> > to the suggested title, so it would become
> >
> > 1. The Internet-Standard Management Framework
> >
> > Are there more supporters for this change?
> > Or objections?
> >
> > Bert
> >
>