Subject: RE: [Diffserv] RE: why i should like pibs

From: "Yavatkar, Raj" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:14:20 -0800

[ post by non-subscriber ]

Hi Walter:

Thanks for a really nice summary. I continue to be amazed at how Randy is
applying a set of inconsistent standards to this work vs other work being
done. Rob Coltun put the current state of IETF well in his departing message
-- I was hoping that would wake up IESG to move away from such political
shenanigans to getting work done especially when vendors with products or
implementations are working towards standardization. 

Raj 

-----Original Message-----
From: Weiss, Walter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:45 AM
To: 'Randy Bush'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Diffserv] RE: why i should like pibs

Randy,

I have two responses.

1. Political:
Why are you asking? Why do you keep asking? And more importantly why, based
on your criteria, haven't you asked for every non-monitoring MIB, or for
various other works such as Policy Framework. I don't mind if we want to
have a substantive discussion around the evolution of configuration
management if you applied your own metrics consistently. If you believe that
none of these technologies meet's your requirements, then freeze them all.
At least then there will be some pressure on all the parties to converge to
a common approach. Personally, I believe your question is a waste of time
since the existing IETF process addresses your question when there is
sufficient implementation to transition standards from proposed standards to
draft standards. Certainly there have been lot's of standards that have
never made it past proposed for the very reasons you describe.

2. Technical:
Given your role, I would not expect you to use this PIB. The very argument
justifying DiffServ is the same one that Operators use to manage their
networks. Both share the goal of making the core of the network static and
stupid (minimal configuration). By recognizing that the core should be kept
as simple as possible, we also all understand that removing complexity from
the core only moves the complexity to some other location: the edge. If the
edge must configure bindings of QoS, Security, Access Control, Tunneling,
Usage Accounting, etc, this drives specific requirements that COPS-PR comes
closest to meeting. I could go into all the details here, but given that
this thread inevitably de-evolves to the usual suspects and the usual
posturing, I have serious doubts about the value of going into any more
details.

regards,

-Walter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 9:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: why i should like pibs
> 
> 
> wearing my iesg hat but being just a stupid operator, i am trying to
> understand the pib/mib controversy.  fyi, i currently use snmp heavily
> for monitoring devices on my network.  i configure using 
> large db-driven
> code and spew text-based cli to the devices.
> 
> let's assume i want to take the leap to a binary, as opposed 
> to textual,
> configuration language.  i.e. for some reason(s) [which we will PLEASE
> NOT discuss here] i decide to move from pushing text-based cli configs
> out to pushing a binary format.
> 
> hence, i would have to push my vendors to implement snmp/cops 
> writes for
> all configuration aspects of all devices.  this would be big cost for
> both me and for my vendors.
> 
> why would cops/pibs be significantly better (remember it has 
> to replace
> my current investment, so it can not be 'just as good') than 
> snmp/mibs?
> 
> randy
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.ht
ml

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:00:20 +0100

Let's try to stick to technical issues please, at least if
you want to keep the diffserv list on this thread.

The technical issue is: does COPS-PR have *significant* technical
advantages over the existing alternatives, that would justify
the added mechanisms and complexity?

   Brian

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:41:19 -0500

I am confused by this posting. In 1999 there was considerable debate on this
subject and it went on for quite some time. I very much doubt that there will
be new issues raised. The technical details are in the record and I just do not
see what value there is in discussing them over again.  Could you or Randy
explain how the IESG has changed its position, if at all. At an OPS area open
meeting about a year ago, I left with the impression that the ADs for O&M were
going to support multiple approaches (at least for some time). Has this
position changed? If so what is the decision the IESG and/or the DiffServ WG
attempting to make?

/jon

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html
-- 
----
Jon Saperia

[email-masked]
Phone: 617-744-1079
Fax:   617-249-0874
http://www.jdscons.com

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:08:18 +0100

The diffserv WG isn't taking any decision - we have completed our work on
the diffserv PIB and submitted it to the IESG. As for the IESG's intentions,
it is for them to reply.

   Brian