[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Design Team for documenting Requirements for Config Mgmt
- To: schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
- Subject: Design Team for documenting Requirements for Config Mgmt
- From: "Bert Wijnen" <WIJNEN@vnet.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 99 15:15:35 DST
- cc: khchan@nortelnetworks.com, brian@hursley.ibm.com, saperia@mediaone.net, mhugh@xpeditio.cnd.hp.com, REMOORE@us.ibm.com, markstevens@lucent.com, WWeiss@lucentctc.com, scott.hahn@intel.com, herzog@iphighway.com, kzm@cisco.com, rdonkin@orchestream.com, david.durham@intel.com, jseligso@nortelnetworks.com, yoramb@exchange.microsoft.com, slblake@torrentnet.com, jstrassn@cisco.com, sob@harvard.edu, fred@cisco.com, randy@psg.com, mleech@nortel.ca, kmn@cisco.com, andrew@extremenetworks.com, timo@bbn.com, vern@ee.lbl.gov, lsanchez@bbn.com, mfine@cisco.com, FranR@iphighway.com, jjr@cabletron.com, mumble@ops.ietf.org, Ellesson@raleigh.ibm.com
Ref: Your note of Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:26:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Design Team for documenting Requirements for Config Mgmt
Juergen writes/asks:
> Just a request for clarification. You do want the DT to document any
> changes needed for SNMPv3/SMIv2 in order to meet the requirements and
> the note on SNMPv4 is just there to remind the DT to choose careful
> wordings that do not destabilize the public perception of the
> stability of SNMPv3. Is that a fair summary?
>
Indeed, carefull wordings are important.
But even more important, the notes state that IESG will decide
what direction to take AFTER the DC IETF. And so, even though the
team is NOW listing possible changes to SNMP/SMI in order to meet
the requirements, that is by no means a sign of an upcoming SNMPvx
and/or an argument to skip SNMPv3 and wait for new things to happen.
Hope this helps
Bert