Re: [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR

Hi,

I did not mean to imply that the IESG did this without following the normal IETF review process.

I agree it was IETF rough consensus.

and I have a typo in that paragraph.

s/SNMP could work with PIBs/SNMP could not work with PIBs/

dbh

From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf at bwijnen.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 4:06 PM
To: David Harrington; paduffy at cisco.com; 'OPS Area (E-mail)'
Cc: opsawg at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR

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 -----

From: David Harrington

To: paduffy at cisco.com ; 'OPS Area (E-mail)'

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