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

Re: [Diffserv] RE: why i should like pibs



The diffserv WG isn't taking any decision - we have completed our work on
the diffserv PIB and submitted it to the IESG. As for the IESG's intentions,
it is for them to reply.

   Brian

Jon Saperia wrote:
> 
> I am confused by this posting. In 1999 there was considerable debate on this
> subject and it went on for quite some time. I very much doubt that there will
> be new issues raised. The technical details are in the record and I just do not
> see what value there is in discussing them over again.  Could you or Randy
> explain how the IESG has changed its position, if at all. At an OPS area open
> meeting about a year ago, I left with the impression that the ADs for O&M were
> going to support multiple approaches (at least for some time). Has this
> position changed? If so what is the decision the IESG and/or the DiffServ WG
> attempting to make?
> 
> /jon
> 
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Let's try to stick to technical issues please, at least if
> > you want to keep the diffserv list on this thread.
> >
> > The technical issue is: does COPS-PR have *significant* technical
> > advantages over the existing alternatives, that would justify
> > the added mechanisms and complexity?
> >
> >    Brian
> >
> > "Yavatkar, Raj" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Walter:
> > >
> > > Thanks for a really nice summary. I continue to be amazed at how Randy is
> > > applying a set of inconsistent standards to this work vs other work being
> > > done. Rob Coltun put the current state of IETF well in his departing message
> > > -- I was hoping that would wake up IESG to move away from such political
> > > shenanigans to getting work done especially when vendors with products or
> > > implementations are working towards standardization.
> > >
> > > Raj
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Weiss, Walter [mailto:wweiss@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:45 AM
> > > To: 'Randy Bush'; rap@xxxxxxxxxxxx; diffserv@xxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: ipsec-policy@xxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [Diffserv] RE: why i should like pibs
> > >
> > > Randy,
> > >
> > > I have two responses.
> > >
> > > 1. Political:
> > > Why are you asking? Why do you keep asking? And more importantly why, based
> > > on your criteria, haven't you asked for every non-monitoring MIB, or for
> > > various other works such as Policy Framework. I don't mind if we want to
> > > have a substantive discussion around the evolution of configuration
> > > management if you applied your own metrics consistently. If you believe that
> > > none of these technologies meet's your requirements, then freeze them all.
> > > At least then there will be some pressure on all the parties to converge to
> > > a common approach. Personally, I believe your question is a waste of time
> > > since the existing IETF process addresses your question when there is
> > > sufficient implementation to transition standards from proposed standards to
> > > draft standards. Certainly there have been lot's of standards that have
> > > never made it past proposed for the very reasons you describe.
> > >
> > > 2. Technical:
> > > Given your role, I would not expect you to use this PIB. The very argument
> > > justifying DiffServ is the same one that Operators use to manage their
> > > networks. Both share the goal of making the core of the network static and
> > > stupid (minimal configuration). By recognizing that the core should be kept
> > > as simple as possible, we also all understand that removing complexity from
> > > the core only moves the complexity to some other location: the edge. If the
> > > edge must configure bindings of QoS, Security, Access Control, Tunneling,
> > > Usage Accounting, etc, this drives specific requirements that COPS-PR comes
> > > closest to meeting. I could go into all the details here, but given that
> > > this thread inevitably de-evolves to the usual suspects and the usual
> > > posturing, I have serious doubts about the value of going into any more
> > > details.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > -Walter
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@xxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:13 AM
> > > > To: rap@xxxxxxxxxxxx; diffserv@xxxxxxxx
> > > > Cc: ipsec-policy@xxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: why i should like pibs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > wearing my iesg hat but being just a stupid operator, i am trying to
> > > > understand the pib/mib controversy.  fyi, i currently use snmp heavily
> > > > for monitoring devices on my network.  i configure using
> > > > large db-driven
> > > > code and spew text-based cli to the devices.
> > > >
> > > > let's assume i want to take the leap to a binary, as opposed
> > > > to textual,
> > > > configuration language.  i.e. for some reason(s) [which we will PLEASE
> > > > NOT discuss here] i decide to move from pushing text-based cli configs
> > > > out to pushing a binary format.
> > > >
> > > > hence, i would have to push my vendors to implement snmp/cops
> > > > writes for
> > > > all configuration aspects of all devices.  this would be big cost for
> > > > both me and for my vendors.
> > > >
> > > > why would cops/pibs be significantly better (remember it has
> > > > to replace
> > > > my current investment, so it can not be 'just as good') than
> > > > snmp/mibs?
> > > >
> > > > randy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > diffserv mailing list
> > diffserv@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
> > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html
> --
> ----
> Jon Saperia
> 
> saperia@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Phone: 617-744-1079
> Fax:   617-249-0874
> http://www.jdscons.com