Subject: RE: [midcom] SNMP In The Evaluation

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:21:18 -0500

Hi all,

I haven't seen any further discussion on this one, but as Editor, I think I
have to agree with Tom.  Clearly, there exists an inconsistency in the
evaluations as far as the Total Compliance versus Partial Compliance. There
had been a brief email thread on the difference in classifying between these
two and the conclusion had been that if extensions are required then the
protocol is partially compliant:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/midcom/current/msg02083.htm
l
Thus, I'm going to propose the change to the SNMP evaluation as Tom has
suggested unless there is strong opinions suggesting otherwise.  

I don't believe this changes the author's overall conclusion that SNMP meets
the requirements as the MIDCOM protocol with the design of a MIDCOM MIB
module. However, it would require changing some of the statements in section
3.

I would propose the following: 
Changing
"The SNMP management framework as evaluated matches all specified Midcom
requirements".
to say something like:
"The SNMP management framework meets all the specified Midcom protocol
requirements with the design of a MIDCOM MIB module".
and then removing the last sentence from that paragraph. 

Regards,
Mary H. Barnes
[email-masked]
972-684-5432
Wireless 817-703-4806

-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:55 AM
To: 'Juergen Quittek'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [midcom] SNMP In The Evaluation

This is a matter of consistent treatment of the protocols in the evaluation.
For DIAMETER, for instance, the necessary data types have probably all been
defined in Base, but it will be necessary to define the messages containing
them.  I think you are saying that in the SNMP case you can point to
specific object types you can import but it will be necessary to define a
new module to provide a context for them.  These may not be at the same
level of activity, but I think they are sufficiently analogous that both
protocols should be classified in the same way.

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:51 AM
To: Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B602:EXCH]; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [midcom] SNMP In The Evaluation

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

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

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:34:03 +0200

Mary,

--On 03 June 2002 13:21 -0500 Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> I haven't seen any further discussion on this one, but as Editor, I think I have to agree with Tom.  Clearly, there exists an inconsistency in the evaluations as far as the Total Compliance versus Partial Compliance. There had been a brief email thread
> on the difference in classifying between these two and the conclusion had been that if extensions are required then the protocol is partially compliant:
>
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/midcom/current/msg02083.html
> Thus, I'm going to propose the change to the SNMP evaluation as Tom has suggested unless there is strong opinions suggesting otherwise.
>
> I don't believe this changes the author's overall conclusion that SNMP meets the requirements as the MIDCOM protocol with the design of a MIDCOM MIB module. However, it would require changing some of the statements in section 3.
>
> "The SNMP management framework as evaluated matches all specified Midcom requirements".
> to say something like:
> "The SNMP management framework meets all the specified Midcom protocol requirements with the design of a MIDCOM MIB module".

I fully agree.

Maybe we can even improve phrasing by writing "appropriate design"
instead of just "design".

    Juergen

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:22:01 -0400

To be fair, the other protocols require extensions in order to comply to
some of the requirements. For example, MEGACO requires the definition of a
new Package to support MIDCOM. Do we need another category besides Total,
Partial, and Failed compliance for those requirements that are easily
covered by the extensibility already built into the protocol? (e.g a new
Package for MEGACO, or a new MIB for SNMP).

cheers,
(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>; "Tom-PT Taylor"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: [midcom] SNMP In The Evaluation

> > I haven't seen any further discussion on this one, but as Editor, I
think I have to agree with Tom.  Clearly, there exists an inconsistency in
the evaluations as far as the Total Compliance versus Partial Compliance.
There had been a brief email thread
> > on the difference in classifying between these two and the conclusion
had been that if extensions are required then the protocol is partially
compliant:
> >
> > I don't believe this changes the author's overall conclusion that SNMP
meets the requirements as the MIDCOM protocol with the design of a MIDCOM
MIB module. However, it would require changing some of the statements in
section 3.
requirements".

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:53:48 -0400

The evaluation of Megaco mentions Contexts (which can be used to group
related Terminations) in the intro, but they are not mentioned anywhere else
in the document. I think Contexts go a long way toward satisfying
requirements 2.2.2 (multiple middlebox action types) and 2.2.3 (Ruleset
groups).

In particular, section 2.2.3 mentions the policy model described in Appendix
C as the answer for the requirement, but claims Total compliance. The use of
Contexts for grouping would be totally compliant.

cheers,
(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]