Re: Question regarding the scope of the WG

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

Just to add to your list and comment on what I have seen posted so
far. It looks like a primary interest is in CLI-based tools. This is
fine as far as it goes and perhaps is the best place to start. The issue
is the list you have below and the degree to which it is necessary or
desirable to have other methods.
/jon
> Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 02:09:26PM -0700, Bill Woodcock said:
> >·
> > The scope of the operator requirements draft is to assess and
> > present the
> > requirements which network operators have of their infrastructure
> > management tools.
> 
> Apologies if I was not clear in stating my question.  I did not
> mean to imply that a new Working Group would be formed.  When I was
> referring to 'the Working Group' I meant the Operations and
> Management Area.
> 
> Stated another way, I am curious about what the goals of the
> Draft  are.  To me, infrastructure management tools could
> include at least the following:-
> 
> »·······configuration database
> »·······configuration generator
> »·······tool to push the config to the network
> 
> »·······trend analysis tools 
> »·······billing collection
> 
> »·······tools to evaluate network health 
> 
> This however seems like quite a lot to cover, so that is the
> reason that I asked about the scope of the Draft.
> 
> Apologies if my earlier wording was poorly thought out.
> 
> --bradv
> 
> 
> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/