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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

Wes,

I am not sure that I understand the point that you are making. We are
trying to gather information if and how is COPS-PR implemented and
deployed. Do you say that there are standard PIB modules that have been
developped by out of the IETF? It's a good time to get this kind of
input.

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:wjhns1 at hardakers.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:51 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: David Harrington; paduffy at cisco.com; opsawg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR
> 
> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:14:14 +0200, "Romascanu, Dan 
> (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com> said:
> 
> DR> In the absence of standards PIBs I suspect that the 
> majority or all 
> DR> the deployments use one vendor tools
> 
> I don't think you can safely make that argument.  Personally, 
> I have no knowledge about how well COPS or COPS-PR or 
> implementations of MIBs are/were used.  But I think since the 
> IETF functionally made all the COPS folks mad by refusing to 
> let them standardize their work (I'm not saying whether this 
> was right or wrong; it's simply fact) the end result was all 
> the COPS folks left the IETF.  If PIBs were indeed written 
> they certainly wouldn't have been standardized within the 
> IETF.  Maybe the IETFs push-back did really cause the 
> technology to become unused.  I don't know.  But I don't 
> think you can use any metrics affected by IETF actions to decide that.
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> Cobham Analytic Solutions
>