[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Rserpool] "Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft"



Dear all of RSerPool WG,

I and my college use RSerPool, we have deployed it in our college's  lab and used for simulation distribution  and , the document looks ok to me  except for the opaque transport parameter,  we see the need to define a MIB because it would be very useful to access RSerPool component status by network management tools. I  have reviewed the MIB draft and think it is okay .


Best regards.

Xing Zhou

===========================================
Prof. Xing Zhou

Hainan University
College of Information Sciences & Technology
58 Renmin Ave.Haikou,Hainan,570228,China
---------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: zhouxing at hainu.edu.cn, xingz hou50 at hotmail.com 
Phone:(+86)0898-66279141(O)  66250584(H) 
Mobile Phone:13034993089
============================================
> From: rserpool-request at ietf.org
> Subject: rserpool Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4
> To: rserpool at ietf.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:00:01 -0700
>
> Send rserpool mailing list submissions to
> rserpool at ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rserpool-request at ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rserpool-owner at ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rserpool digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft (Chris Singh)
> 2. Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft (Michael T?xen)
> 3. Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft (Thomas Dreibholz)
> 4. Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft (Jobin Pulinthanath)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:30:34 +0000
> From: Chris Singh <chris.singh at live.com>
> Subject: [Rserpool] WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft
> To: <rserpool at ietf.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY116-W48451F19C6A3B593D3EE6E95260 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> > Please have a look at the current draft
> > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt) and
> > provide comments back to the mailing list by Wednesday, October 29th.
>
> Hi,
>
> we currently apply RSerPool RSPLIB test setup do load distribution for compute services. Our compny MegaconSystems Ltd. is new startup company developing Grid/distributed computing software product and services. Having SNMP support would benefit for management integration into network management tool. I have reviewed draft document and think is okay.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris Singh
> MegaconSystems Limited
> 30/9, Guru House, Old Rajinder Nagar
> New Delhi, Delhi 110060, India
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Searching for the best deals on travel? Visit MSN Travel.
> http://in.msn.com/coxandkings
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:24:19 +0100
> From: Michael T?xen <Michael.Tuexen at lurchi.franken.de>
> Subject: Re: [Rserpool] WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft
> To: Magnus Westerlund <mag nus.westerlund at ericsson.com>
> Cc: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong at Ciena.com>, rserpool at ietf.org
> Message-ID: <042647A3-2E97-4F2B-BBF1-DD8811939479 at lurchi.franken.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm not an expert for MIBs...
>
> The document looks OK to me except for one thing:
>
> It looks like poolElementEntry does not provide support
> for the Opaque transport parameter.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
> On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>
> > Ong, Lyndon skrev:
> >> Hi Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> There is one remaining draft on our list of WG drafts, which is the
> >> MIB
> >> draft. We would like to start WG Last Call on this draft and get
> >> this
> >> rea dy for IESG review as a potential Exp RFC as a companion to the
> >> others.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please have a look at the current draft
> >> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-
> >> mib-07.txt) and
> >> provide comments back to the mailing list by Wednesday, October
> >> 29^th .
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If
> > there
> > are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> > think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> > demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend,
> > MIB
> > doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> > document where there are no interest.
> >
> > Regards> >
> > Magnus Westerlund
> >
> > IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
> > F?r?gatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550
> > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > rserpool mailing list
> > rserpool at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:50:34 +0100
> From: Thomas Dreibholz <dreibh at ie m.uni-due.de>
> Subject: Re: [Rserpool] WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft
> To: rserpool at ietf.org
> Cc: Michael T?xen <Michael.Tuexen at lurchi.franken.de>, "Ong, Lyndon"
> <Lyong at ciena.com>
> Message-ID: <200810300850.42553.dreibh at iem.uni-due.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Mittwoch, 29. Oktober 2008, Michael T?xen wrote:
> > The document looks OK to me except for one thing:
> >
> > It looks like poolElementEntry does not provide support
> > for the Opaque transport parameter.
>
> Dear all,
>
> this parameter is still missing. I will add it to the MIB.
>
>
> Best regards
> --
> =======================================================================
> Dr. Thomas Dreibholz
>
> University of Duisburg-Essen, Room ES210
> Inst. for Experimental Mathematics Ellern stra?e 29
> Computer Networking Technology Group D-45326 Essen/Germany
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail: dreibh at iem.uni-due.de
> Homepage: http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh
> =======================================================================
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/rserpool/attachments/20081030/2750e241/attachment-0001.htm>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 197 bytes
> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
> Url : <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/rserpool/attachments/20081030/2750e241/attachment-0001.sig>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Da te: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:44:45 +0100
> From: Jobin Pulinthanath <jp at iem.uni-due.de>
> Subject: Re: [Rserpool] WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft
> To: rserpool at ietf.org
> Message-ID: <4909D66D.3010609 at iem.uni-due.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>
> > I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If there
> > are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> > think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> > demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend,
> > MIB
> > doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> > document where there are no interest.
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am working with RSerPool for some research in the area of Network
> Management particularly with regard to IPFIX. I think it is imp ortant to
> define a specific common MIB for RSerPool. Without a MIB institutions
> who work with RSerPool will define their own MIB, which leads to
> incompatibility and inconsistency. Since the RSerPool core documents are
> RFC now, I see the need that the MIB document proceeds to RFC too. I
> agree with the opinion mentioned by Michael, that the Opaque transport
> parameter is missing, else the draft is ok.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jobin
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dipl.-Wirt.-Inf. Jobin Pulinthanath
> Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems
> University of Duisburg-Essen
> Germany
> E-Mail: jp at iem.uni-due.de
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> __________________ _____________________________
> rserpool mailing list
> rserpool at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
>
>
> End of rserpool Digest, Vol 45, Issue 4
> ***************************************


Get news, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Check it out!
_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
rserpool at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool