Subject: RE: [midcom] MIDCOM MIB design question

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:24:23 -0500

Hi JS,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> 
> 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. 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. 

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.

dbh

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:37:53 -0500

> of the solution in terms of a MIDCOM protocol distinct from SNMP.

Thanks to you both for emphasizing this, and especially for hanging
in and helping us out.  I think it's clearly the case that if we want
this to function well we need to do it in a way that's idiomatic to
SNMP.

Melinda

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:18:11 +0100

David,

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

> 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

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.

> of the solution in terms of a MIDCOM protocol distinct from SNMP.

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