RE: [midcom] MIDCOM MIB design question

[Juergen Quittek <quittek@ccrle.nec.de>]

David,

--On 12.12.2003 12:24 Uhr -0500 Harrington, David wrote:

> Hi JS,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de]
> >
> > What puzzles me is the notion of the "MIDCOM protocol" in the context
> > of SNMP. ... So from this MIB perspective,
> > I fail to see why there is a certain MIBCOM protocol - there are just
> > MIDCOM MIB objects which allow you to achieve the services
> > described in > the MIDCOM semantics objects. Let me know if I am
> completely on the
> > wrong track and I have to read the document (which one?).
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> I don't think you're on the wrong track. I agree strongly with you on
> this and have been working to educate people on this viewpoint. Thank
> you for also pointing this out.
>
> The WG has selected SNMPv3 as the protocol (as the result of a
> comparison of five existing IETF protocols), but most of the WG are not
> very SNMP-savvy and have difficulty conceptualizing the solution in SNMP
> terms.

Thank you for the compliment.

The point is that the SNMP community in turn is not very MIDCOM-savvy,
so it is not that easy to produce a standard that satisfies both parties.

> Many people in the WG come from environments where they think in
> terms of control protocols, and continue to conceptualize the problem in
> terms of a "MIDCOM protocol" that happens to run over SNMP, rather than
> thinking that SNMPv3 **is** the protocol.

Let's discuss this offline, maybe at the next IETF meeting.  For now,
we have an answer to our question and can prepare a first version of
the MIDCOM MIB.

> Sometimes this non-SNMPish view of the world makes it much harder to
> design the MIDCOM MIB. The current discussion is partly due to thinking
> of the solution in terms of a MIDCOM protocol distinct from SNMP.
>
> Oh well.

Thank you for your patience.  I am afraid we MIDCOM people will need
more of it until the MIDCOM MIB is mature.  I guess we are still welcome
to ask ignorant questions ;-)

Thanks,

   Juergen

> dbh