Subject: [midcom] SNMP In The Evaluation

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:15:10 -0400

SNMP fit to requirements is overstated relative to the other protocols.  For
consistency, every requirement which refers to "an appropriate definition of
a Midcom MIB module" should be rated as "partially met".

Tom Taylor
[email-masked]
Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490)

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:51:21 +0200

Tom,

--On 29 May 2002 09:15 -0400 Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
>
> SNMP fit to requirements is overstated relative to the other
> protocols.  For consistency, every requirement which refers to
> "an appropriate definition of a Midcom MIB module" should be
> rated as "partially met".

I agree, that the statements are to general. Would you be fine
if I provide more concrete arguments, why these requirements
are clearly met. This is much more appropriate than moving to
partially met.

Take for example "2.2.2 Support of multiple Middlebox types".
SNMP has several means to do so, starting from the standard
sysObjectID indicating the 'kind of box' to managed objects
defining the type in more general terms, e.g. NAT, NAT-PT, NAPT,
packet filter, ...
Also box type specific support by specific managed objects
is something which SNMP/SMI was built for. It definitely
meets these requirement fully, not partially.

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek     [email-masked]     Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,    Network Laboratories     Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Adenauerplatz 6, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.ccrle.nec.de
> Ph. +1 613 736 0961 (ESN 396 1490)

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