RE: Status of the WG

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 09:39 AM 2/13/2003 -0800, Durham, David wrote:
>The silence is deafening, and says it all. It seems that while most are
>in agreement that SMI is seriously antiquated, convoluted, and requires
>several maintenance fixes, there is very little (apparently zero now)
>interest in fixing it and improving it. It would seem people are
>satisfied with SNMP being regulated to a legacy systems management
>interface. 
>
>There is the realization that up-to-date data modeling languages are
>already widely used and available (e.g. XMLSchema), and that the IETF
>should not be engaged in the task of inventing yet another idiosyncratic
>data modeling language... Particularly given that it will seriously
>languish behind those that are commonly available today. 
>
>Looking at the ROI on this effort, there are those who are asking why
>not just adopt what is already available and stop beating a dead horse
>in the hopes it will rise.

I agree with this assessment.  It would be a large development
effort to move from SMIv2 to any new syntax.  The key question
is how much benefit will be realized by making a particular change.

While I still believe there is enough benefit in the data modeling
features of SMI-DS to make it worthwhile, I no longer believe that
SNMP vendors and customers are willing to incur any significant cost
to get this benefit.  I think the resources devoted to SNMP
development are diminishing quickly (as expected for a legacy
technology), and developers and customers believe SMIv2 is
good enough, for the amount of effort they are willing to
invest in SNMP. 

The cost/benefit ratio for SMIv2.1 seems worthwhile.  The
need for HC data types has been known since (at least) 1992.
Mandatory maintenance of SMIv2 is something that should already
be done, so better late than never.

Keep in mind that the decision to abandon SMIv3 (and EOS)
sends a clear message to vendors and customers that SNMP
technology has reached its peak. What we have now is
as good as its ever going to get.  Those that are happy
with SNMPv3/SMIv2 will continue to use it.  Those looking
for something better will accelerate their efforts to
transition to something else.


>-Dave

Andy



>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
>> 
>> So... not much (if anything) seems to be happening.
>>