Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18385 for nmrg-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:01:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18379; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:01:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id RAA19541; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:01:33 +0100 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:01:33 +0100 Message-Id: <200102161601.RAA19541@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] just for your info Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk I recently wrote a new SNMP command line toolset, which is now publically available under the GPL: http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/stools/ The core idea was to design tools that are very efficient to use (at least for Unix people ;-) and which are organized in a way network operators look at devices. The implementation has been designed so that one can extend the tools (in C) without being familiar with low-level SNMP operations and APIs. All the low-level SNMP stuff is hidden in stub functions that are generated by a MIB compiler. If I manage to encourage enough people to contribute extensions (so called modes) for additional MIBs, then I believe that these tools may have some impact on how people use SNMP in the future. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04689 for nmrg-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:56:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04684; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:56:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id PAA28349; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:56:34 +0100 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:56:34 +0100 Message-Id: <200102011456.PAA28349@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] conceptual vs computational models Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk In our last meeting, we shortly had the terms conceptual model and computational models on the board. We later wiped them out, even though I am not sure everybody had agreement what these terms mean. I just found a nice paper which provides definitions of these terms and which argues about the differences (even though I do not fully agree with the position held by the authors). Those interested might want to read it: @Article{JM00, author = "N. Juristo and A. M. Moreno", title = "{Introductory paper: Reflections on Conceptual Modeling}", journal = "Data and Knowledge Engineering", volume = "33", number = "2", pages = "103--117", month = may, year = "2000", } If we produce a paper about the results of the last meeting (which I hope is still on our TODO list), I would like to have in it an explanation how "our" terminology relates to the terminology coming from the Data/Software/Knowledge Engineering fields. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936