RE: SNMP improvements

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

>>...
>> The political environment in the IETF NM area has been pretty
>> discouraging to people interested in SNMP. It has largely come down to
>> if you are interested in SNMP your opinions are not welcome. 
>> That is one reason why you see so many SNMP people in the netconf WG.
>> 
>As AD for the IETF NM and SNMP related work, I must take issue with the
>above statement. It is NOT the "political environment in the IETF NM area".
>It is rather that the players seems unable to put enough energy into it
>and lack the willingness to come to consensus on the technical solutions.

I agree with Bert.  There is a long-standing sentiment
in the SNMP community not to change anything in the
protocol or the SMI.  This bias comes from the vendors,
not the ADs.  There aren't really 'SNMP people' in the
netconf WG.  There are 'network management' people.  Those
who expect netconf to reinvent SNMP will be disappointed 
in the outcome.

Andy


>Add to that the message we have received from the operator community:
>That SNMP and the MIB modules are NOT used for configuring most network
>devices and that it does not meet their needs. 
>
>So I am taking issues with the idea that this is a "political" issue!!!
>
>Bert Wijnen
>AD Operations and Management Area.
>
>> Dbh
>> David Harrington            
>> dbh@enterasys.com
>> co-chair, IETF SNMPv3 WG (now concluded)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > /js
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > Juergen Schoenwaelder                   International 
>> University Bremen
>> > <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>         P.O. Box 750 561, 
>> > 28725 Bremen, Germany
>> > 
>> > 
>>