Subject: RE: [midcom] Midcom proposal: please read

From: "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 14:11:34 +0100

I think it would be useful for the WG if we compare both COPS-PR and SNMPv3
against the current protocol semantics document, motherhood requirements
such as operations/maintenance, performance and applicability to network
scenarios. 
This was not done in any of the protocol evaluations as all the authors were
mandated to evaluate against the protocol requirements and framework
documents.
The comparison will help in deciding how to move forward.
Cedric

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 03 December 2002 23:33
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [midcom] Midcom proposal: please read 

It looks like there's sufficient objection to the proposal
to just go ahead now with SNMPv3 as the midcom protocol.
Because of that we do need to forge ahead with the protocol
selection process, and at this point I'd like to discuss
removing COPS from contention.

Thanks,

Melinda
_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:36:28 -0500

> I think it would be useful for the WG if we compare both
> COPS-PR and SNMPv3 against the current protocol semantics
> document, motherhood requirements such as
> operations/maintenance, performance and applicability to
> network scenarios.  This was not done in any of the
> protocol evaluations as all the authors were mandated to
> evaluate against the protocol requirements and framework
> documents.  The comparison will help in deciding how to
> move forward.

I don't think that's appropriate right now.  COPS and megaco
are the two lowest-scoring protocols in the evaluation
document, and COPS has serious problems with the suitability
of its provisioning model.  As things currently stand, the
only people who have made serious objections to removing
COPS from the list of candidate protocols are the authors of
the COPS evaluation and I don't think that's sufficient.

If possible I'd really like to see the working group come to
agreement SOON to remove both COPS and megaco from
consideration.  

Melinda

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:10:50 +0100

Melinda Shore wrote:

[...]

> agreement SOON to remove both COPS and megaco from

Fine with me to remove COPS and MEGACO from the list of possible MIDCOM 
candidates.