|
I am not really interested to get involved too deeply in this
discussion,
certainly not at the level of detail that David does in his
repsonse to Paul.
But I would like to comment on one statement from David
Harrington,
namely:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:16
AM
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Present day
reality of COPS-PR
Hi,
comments inline. I can help with the RFC. here's a start ...
;-)
> It never
> really took off, for the following
reasons....
>
> - most, if not all, of what could be done with
COPS-PR/PIBs
> can be done
> with SNMP/MIBs. To do both is
significant duplicated effort.
That is true, and that is what really
killed it in IETF, where there
was a policy that all WGs were expected to
"write a MIB" to make their
protoocls manageable. The IESG decided that
they could not insist that
WGs duplicate effort by writing both a MIB and a
PIB, but SNMP could
work with PIBs (and it would not have been easy to make
that work), so
just "write a PIB" for both COPS-PR and SNMP usage was not a
viable
option either.
This gives the impression that the IESG decided this
on her own. The IESG did collect
IETF input in various ways (BOF, info-gathering
meetings, plenary discussion etc)
and based on the input concluded that there was
(albeit very rough) consensus to not
support PIB Modules on the standards
track.
Bert
|