Jay - I'm not quite sure what we're talking about here. Generally, I ag=
ree
wholeheartedly with what you are saying. For Notifications, it is clear=
that
the PWG has shown a desire to investigate existing or emerging standard=
s as the
basis for a solution. Originally, Paul Moore had commented on the robus=
t use of
attributes in the FIN MIB... a scheme we adopted in development of the =
JOB MIB
to reduce the number of OIDs and avoid an approach which had proven les=
s than
useful with the Printer MIB (Mandatory/Optional). No-one core to the Jo=
b MIB
team and no-one having prototyped and/or implemented the Job MIB seems =
to have
any issues. Admittedly, someone reviewing this for the first time (as P=
aul was
in the FIN MIB) may wonder. I was only trying to help Paul at least und=
erstand
the CONTEXT... even if he decides to persist in his disagreement with t=
he
method.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
jkm at underscore.com on 06/18/98 02:42:15 PM
Please respond to jkm at underscore.com
To: sense at pwg.org, fin at pwg.org, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at ibmus
cc:
Subject: Re: FIN> On reading the FIN draft
Harry,
> With regard to trap registration... I agree. I think, if you've been =
following
> the Notifications discussions in the PWG (which I'm sure YOU have ;-)=
, you'll
> find proposals to define PWG specific registration schemes "rejected"=
on the
> basis that SNMPv3 supplies most of what we need. As for "things we di=
d with
the
> Job MIB"... remember, it was the IETF who turned their backs on us...=
this is
> strictly a PWG standard.
With all due respect, the fact that the Job MIB is not under
the domain of the IETF has nothing to do with the concept of
developing standard techniques in an open arena.
I personally struggled with this concept while developing
the SENSE technology. I knew all along that a system
of inexpensive, light-weight, scalable event notification
was of emminent utility around the world, across almost
every type of distributed application.
Hence, I was (and remain) quite shy about having the PWG
declare its own notification system without regard for
the needs of others. This is but one reason I put the
brakes on the SENSE project--to wait and see if other
proposals would emerge in a reasonable time frame.
(I am now monitoring the WebDAV's ENP effort quite closely.)
Just because the IETF declined to embrace the Job MIB
shouldn't mean we have license to institute any kind
of related technology we find interesting or useful.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and all that rot... ;-)
Please do understand, though, that I wholeheartedly
encourage members of the PWG to band together and
form a new IETF WG to address any IETF-related technology
opportunity as a separate group.
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm at underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=