From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Oct 1 13:42:31 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28145 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:42:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g91Hkla19014; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:46:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA17684 for agentx-list; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flicker.bmc.com (flicker.bmc.com [172.20.8.40]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA12378 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-sjc-2-int.bmc.com (IDENT:postfix@[198.175.229.198]) by flicker.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g8UDRrc15778 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seymour39.snmp.com (seymour39.snmp.com [192.147.142.39]) by mx-us-sjc-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C979222EF1 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:01:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from snmp.com (LOCALHOST.snmp.com [127.0.0.1]) by seymour39.snmp.com (8.9.3/m.000221) with ESMTP id JAA18274; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200209301327.JAA18274@seymour39.snmp.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0 To: mibs@ops.ietf.org, agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Help/guidance on L2TPv3 MIB draft In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:46:45 -0400. <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C0286F7C3@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:27:15 -0400 From: Steve Moulton Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sunday, September 29 2002, "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" wro te: > At 8/19/2002:08:26 PM, Jed Lau wrote: > > Hi Jed, > > Please review this MIB for compatibility with the > IETF standard SNMP agent extensibility protocol, > AgentX (RFC2741...and RFC2742 can also give you > some additional insight into AgentX operations). > > The fundamental issue is that scalar objects are > potentially problematic for AgentX. They should be > avoided by putting them into a table indexed by > some form of "AgentEntityID" object (an exercise > left to the implementer for now :-(). > > Note that the issue of AgentX compatibility for > MIB writers will be addressed in a forthcoming > Internet Draft that I will submit...perhaps with > an extended applicability statement for AgentX > (Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of RFC2741 do a good > job of the basics already)...for consideration by > the relevant IETF WGs. My hope is that consideration > of this Draft will lead to adding a statement or two > to the standard "SNMP Framework" boilerplate to > document these requirements for MIB writers. > > Guidance from Bert re where to discuss this > issue -- AgentX compatibility guidelines for > SNMP MIBs -- will be appreciated. (The AgentX > e-mail list is still operative, but the WG is > closed pending further work when its time to > move to Full Standard status.) Perhaps AgentX could receive some attention to fix this shortcoming, rather than force MIB writers to use artificial constraints that are not a part of, and rather unnatural to, SNMP. This kind of artificial constraint (Andy might say CLR) does little other than impede SNMP (and SNMPv3) acceptance. - Steve --- Steve Moulton SNMP Research, Inc voice: +1 865 573 1434 Sr Software Engineer 3001 Kimberlin Heights Rd. fax: +1 865 573 9197 moulton@snmp.com Knoxville, TN 37920-9716 USA http://www.snmp.com From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Oct 1 13:56:48 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA28763 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:56:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g91I23U24613; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:02:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA17859 for agentx-list; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA12561 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:45:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g8UEl9h29721 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:47:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown [147.11.1.11]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E393E20EF9B for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:47:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from kenawang.windriver.com ([147.11.233.9]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA07009; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020930104133.02a4bae0@mail.windriver.com> X-Sender: mrw@mail.windriver.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:48:10 -0400 To: Juergen Schoenwaelder From: Margaret Wasserman Subject: Re: Help/guidance on L2TPv3 MIB draft Cc: bnatale@lucent.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org, agentx@dorothy.bmc.com In-Reply-To: <200209301205.g8UC5b0h015896@hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> References: < <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C0286F7D1@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com> <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C0286F7D1@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list > >I guess you two are not well communcating. My understanding is that >Bob talks about objects such as ifNumber which are problematic when >the counted ifEntry rows exist in different sub-agents. I do not think >Bob is talking about scalars in general, which is what Andy seem to >have in mind. I never understood the value of the "fooNumber" variables to begin with... They are complex to maintain for a large, dynamic table (like a routing table). They don't reflect the number of entries that are actually visible to the manager, so a manager can't expect to see that number of entries in the table. And, for a large, dynamic table, the number of entries is likely to change in the time it takes to do enough get-nexts and/or get-bulks to download it. But, assuming that you believe that they have any use at all... Why would it be more useful to present them as a table? And, how would you index such a table? Not just idle speculation -- I'm working on a MIB right now that (for historical reasons) will probably continue to have one of these irritating little buggers... Margaret From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Oct 1 14:05:17 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29086 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g91IAV328041; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:10:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id LAA18013 for agentx-list; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA18008 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g91I4S901230 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:04:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (unknown [192.11.226.161]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FD4D20EFA9 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:03:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from md6370exch004u.wins.lucent.com (h135-114-172-12.lucent.com [135.114.172.12]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g91I3xK26787 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:59 -0400 Message-ID: <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C02920226@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com> From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" To: mibs@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Help/guidance on L2TPv3 MIB draft Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:03:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Moulton [mailto:moulton@snmp.com] > > Perhaps AgentX could receive some attention to fix > this shortcoming, rather than force MIB writers to > use artificial constraints that are not a part > of, and rather unnatural to, SNMP. This kind of > artificial constraint (Andy might say CLR) does > little other than impede SNMP (and SNMPv3) acceptance. To repeat: It has nothing to do with any "shortcoming" in AgentX -- the IETF standard extensible agent protocol supports singly instanced MIBs just fine (RFC2741, 4.2.1, again). It is however an "artificial constraint", of singly instantiable MIBs. It is that defect in many existing MIBs (not its correction) that has, in part, retarded SNMP deployment. From an information engineering perspective, all MIBs should be designed for multiple instantiability. That quality is (and always has been) readily available (with trivially incremental design effort and runtime cost) in the existing SMI -- and it would virtually have to be, since multiple instantiability is a fundamental attribute of shared data models. Single instance runtime configs are merely a natural subset. Cheers, BobN From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Oct 1 15:17:14 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02024 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:17:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g91JMMO02737; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:22:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id MAA19011 for agentx-list; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flicker.bmc.com (flicker.bmc.com [172.20.8.40]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id MAA19006 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-sjc-2-int.bmc.com (IDENT:postfix@[198.175.229.198]) by flicker.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g91JGlc16651 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (hoemail1.lucent.com [192.11.226.161]) by mx-us-sjc-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44096222EEE for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:49:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from md6370exch004u.wins.lucent.com (h135-114-172-12.lucent.com [135.114.172.12]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g91JGGZ06202 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:16:15 -0400 Message-ID: <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C0294D5AA@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com> From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Help/guidance on L2TPv3 MIB draft Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:16:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Hi Margaret, Comments inline: > I never understood the value of the "fooNumber" variables to begin > with... > > They are complex to maintain for a large, dynamic table (like a > routing table). > > They don't reflect the number of entries that are actually > visible to the manager, so a manager can't expect to see that > number of entries in the table. > > And, for a large, dynamic table, the number of entries is likely to > change in the time it takes to do enough get-nexts and/or get-bulks > to download it. Correct on all counts, IMHO. However, it must use such scalars in new MIBs, AgentX can support them in various ways: E.g., perhaps you the MIB will never need to run in a multiply instanced configuration or perhaps the "registration priority" feature of AgentX can identify one sub-agent instance that will track such non-static scalar value. (Note that the latter approach would most likely require sub-agent to sub-agent communications that are outside the scope of AgentX.) > But, assuming that you believe that they have any use at all... If you must use such non-static scalars in new MIBs, AgentX can support them in various ways: E.g., perhaps you the MIB will never need to run in a multiply instanced configuration (no brainer case) or perhaps the "registration priority" feature of AgentX can identify the one sub-agent instance that will track such non-static scalar value. (Note that the latter approach would most likely require sub-agent to sub-agent communications, for value aggregation, that are outside the scope of AgentX.) [Note that thinking about the different nature, in general, of static scalar objects and those that report dynamic values can be very illuminating: Static scalars will almost certainly show sub- agent-specificity by nature; dynamic scalars will often prove to be redundant wrt information available via tables in the MIB.] > Why would it be more useful to present them as a table? So that multiple sub-agents could maintain their respective values independently. > And, how would you index such a table? The agentx-IndexAllocate-PDU could be used to manage index assignments. An "agentEntityID" object of some kind...a simple INTEGER index would probably suffice...a TC to be used by all might be appropriate ...several common forms of MIB-specific approaches, while least desirable, would not necessarily be outlandish...I'm not trying to design or recommend a specific approach here. > Not just idle speculation -- I'm working on a MIB right now that (for > historical reasons) will probably continue to have one of these > irritating little buggers... Understood...good luck. Cheers, BobN From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Oct 1 16:35:30 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04309 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g91KeTZ04090; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:40:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA19322 for agentx-list; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA19316; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:32:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200210012032.NAA19316@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com, red.wang@utstar.com Subject: Re: â²e?â²: non-subscriber posting(another quest Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi - > From: "red" > To: "Randy Presuhn" , > Subject: =?utf-8?B?4oCyZT/igLI6IG5vbi1zdWJzY3JpYmVyIHBvc3RpbmcoYW5vdGhlciBxdWVzdA==?= > =?utf-8?B?aW9uKQ==?= > Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:19:16 +0800 > Message-ID: > In-Reply-To: <200209261518.IAA02062@dorothy.bmc.com> ... > Will master Agent handle the next snmp request , when it has not send response for the last snmp request yet? ... It depends on the type of request and the implementation. RFC 1905 clause 4.2.5 (13) limits concurrency of processing SetRequests. Some master agents process GetRequests serially (even though they may dispatch the variable bindings to subagents for potentially concurrent processing). ------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. SJC-1.3141 randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------ My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Oct 1 20:32:45 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10217 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g920bnD04640; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:37:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id RAA20343 for agentx-list; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id RAA20337; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:29:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200210020029.RAA20337@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: RE: Help/guidance on L2TPv3 MIB draft Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - At least three different issues in this thread: The "problematic" scalars are symptomatic of assumptions about implementation architecture that, if they're going to be made at all, should be made explicitly. Specifically, these objects like ifNumber are straighforward in systems that have centralized resource allocation for the type of resource in question, and are a real pain in systems which would not otherwise need to devote a task to tracking the allocation / deallocation of a particular resource type. In the spirit of the eos and sming discussions, I think we'd do well to remember that snmpv3 and agentx have contexts because the working groups recognized the reality of the fundamental limitations of the naming architecture. If the designer of a MIB didn't get everything into the INDEX clause that would be necessary for every possible system configuration, one is forced to resort to contexts to do the naming. Architectures that employ relative distinguished names (e.g., X.500) don't have this problem, but pay for it with a more complex discovery process. Having common, protocol-independent instrumentation across all target platform architectures might be the "right" way to go, but protocols like today's SNMP put such strong constraints on the data model that the benefits of doing so would be severely compromised. And then there's that little problem of actually establishing such a standard API with an interoperable protocol to go with it. It'd be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it. ------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. SJC-1.3141 randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------ My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Oct 10 05:31:13 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26358 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 05:31:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g9A9Yim02435; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:34:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id CAA23385 for agentx-list; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id CAA23380 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g9A9RAN20845 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 04:27:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from inergen.sybase.com (unknown [192.138.151.43]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ACC2120EF96 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:27:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp1.sybase.com (sybgate [10.22.97.84]) by inergen.sybase.com with ESMTP id CAA14231 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.sybase.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.sybase.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/sendmail 8.9.3 smtp1 2000/11/20) with ESMTP id CAA00485 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zaphod.sybase.com (zaphod.sybase.com [158.76.100.11]) by smtp1.sybase.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/sendmail 8.9.3 smtp1 2000-11-20) with ESMTP id CAA00477 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sybase.com (jobson-2k [158.76.131.149]) by zaphod.sybase.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19727 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:27:11 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3DA547EF.3040402@sybase.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:27:11 +0100 From: Chris Jobson Organization: Sybase, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Status of AgentX ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi I have just joined the list and was wondering what the status of this is. The joining mail points at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/agentx-charter.html but this page doesn't exist, so that doesn't look too promising ... I am investigating using Java sub-agents working with a AgentX compliant master agent (e,g, Net-SNMP), and don't want to start down this road to find that this is technology that is not going anywhere. (Not being an SNMP expert, the AgentX approach looks good, but maybe there are alternatives elsewhere, especially if I need a Java solution). Comments and pointers to useful references would be helpful. Most of the stuff I have found seems quite old. Cheers chris From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Oct 10 10:01:10 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04976 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g9AE6TO10296; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:06:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id GAA24188 for agentx-list; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA24180 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g9ADxUC23691 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:59:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (auemail1.lucent.com [192.11.223.161]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E92A31FF006 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:59:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: from md6370exch004u.wins.lucent.com (h135-114-172-12.lucent.com [135.114.172.12]) by auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g9ADxUF25983 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <41W5Y9C7>; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:30 -0400 Message-ID: <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C02BFCDAD@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com> From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" To: Chris Jobson Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: RE: Status of AgentX ??? Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Hi Chris, AgentX is defined by RFC2741 (protocol) and RFC2742 (MIB), and was advanced to Draft Standard status several months ago based on implementation and deployment experience. The WG closed down as a normal course of IETF process, as there were no further active items needing attention at that time. It will be reactivated at some point in the not too distant future to consider whether AgentX should advance to Full Status or needs revision based on the additional utilization experience gained during this interim period. Let me know if you need any further detail on this matter. Cheers, BobN > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Jobson [mailto:jobson@sybase.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:27 AM > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com > Subject: Status of AgentX ??? > > > Hi > > I have just joined the list and was wondering what the status of this > is. The joining > mail points at > > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/agentx-charter.html > > but this page doesn't exist, so that doesn't look too promising ... > > I am investigating using Java sub-agents working with a > AgentX compliant > master agent > (e,g, Net-SNMP), and don't want to start down this road to find that > this is technology that > is not going anywhere. (Not being an SNMP expert, the AgentX > approach > looks good, > but maybe there are alternatives elsewhere, especially if I > need a Java > solution). > > Comments and pointers to useful references would be helpful. Most of > the stuff I have found > seems quite old. > > Cheers > > chris > > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Thu Oct 10 12:32:39 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14112 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g9AGc2K11786; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:38:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id JAA24638 for agentx-list; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id JAA24633 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g9AGVRo23118 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:31:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from inergen.sybase.com (unknown [192.138.151.43]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D53A20EFDC for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 16:31:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp1.sybase.com (sybgate [10.22.97.84]) by inergen.sybase.com with ESMTP id JAA29751 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.sybase.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.sybase.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/sendmail 8.9.3 smtp1 2000/11/20) with ESMTP id JAA11533 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zaphod.sybase.com (zaphod.sybase.com [158.76.100.11]) by smtp1.sybase.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/sendmail 8.9.3 smtp1 2000-11-20) with ESMTP id JAA11515; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sybase.com (jobson-2k [158.76.131.149]) by zaphod.sybase.com (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA12212; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:31:27 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <3DA5AB5E.8060508@sybase.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:31:26 +0100 From: Chris Jobson Organization: Sybase, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: Status of AgentX ??? References: <305D2EAC01C45448A7F3ECC487666F6C02BFCDAD@md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit thanks Just wanted to see if this was stuff people are actively using. chris Natale, Robert C (Bob) wrote: >Hi Chris, > >AgentX is defined by RFC2741 (protocol) and RFC2742 (MIB), >and was advanced to Draft Standard status several months >ago based on implementation and deployment experience. > >The WG closed down as a normal course of IETF process, as >there were no further active items needing attention at >that time. It will be reactivated at some point in the >not too distant future to consider whether AgentX should >advance to Full Status or needs revision based on the >additional utilization experience gained during this >interim period. > >Let me know if you need any further detail on this matter. > >Cheers, > >BobN > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Chris Jobson [mailto:jobson@sybase.com] >>Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:27 AM >>To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com >>Subject: Status of AgentX ??? >> >> >>Hi >> >>I have just joined the list and was wondering what the status of this >>is. The joining >>mail points at >> >>http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/agentx-charter.html >> >>but this page doesn't exist, so that doesn't look too promising ... >> >>I am investigating using Java sub-agents working with a >>AgentX compliant >>master agent >>(e,g, Net-SNMP), and don't want to start down this road to find that >>this is technology that >>is not going anywhere. (Not being an SNMP expert, the AgentX >>approach >>looks good, >>but maybe there are alternatives elsewhere, especially if I >>need a Java >>solution). >> >>Comments and pointers to useful references would be helpful. Most of >>the stuff I have found >>seems quite old. >> >>Cheers >> >>chris >> >> >> >>