Subject: [Rserpool] WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

From: Chris Singh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:30:34 +0000

> Please have a look at the current draft
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt) and
> provide comments back to the mailing list by Wednesday, October 29th.

Hi,

we currently apply RSerPool RSPLIB test setup do load distribution for compute services. Our compny MegaconSystems Ltd. is new startup company developing Grid/distributed computing software product and services. Having SNMP support would benefit for management integration into network management tool. I have reviewed draft document and think is okay.

Kind regards,

Chris Singh
MegaconSystems Limited
30/9, Guru House, Old Rajinder Nagar
New Delhi, Delhi 110060, India

_________________________________________________________________
Searching for the best deals on travel? Visit MSN Travel.
http://in.msn.com/coxandkings
_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

---

From: Jobin Pulinthanath <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:44:45 +0100

> I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If there
> are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend,
> MIB
> doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> document where there are no interest.

	Dear all,

I am working with RSerPool for some research in the area of Network
Management particularly with regard to IPFIX. I think it is important to
define a specific common MIB for RSerPool. Without a MIB institutions
who work with RSerPool will define their own MIB, which leads to
incompatibility and inconsistency. Since the RSerPool core documents are
RFC now, I see the need that the MIB document proceeds to RFC too. I
agree with the opinion mentioned by Michael, that the Opaque transport
parameter is missing, else the draft is ok.

	Best regards,

	Jobin

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Dipl.-Wirt.-Inf. Jobin Pulinthanath
	Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems
	University of Duisburg-Essen
	Germany
	E-Mail: [email-masked]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

---

From: Nihad Cosic <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:06:25 +0100

> demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend, MIB

Dear all,

as system administrator of the Institute for Computer Science and
Business Information Systems at the University of Duisburg-Essen, I
maintain RSerPool setups for multiple projects in our university
network. For most tasks of my network administration work, I apply
SNMP-based management software. Since we currently already apply two
different RSerPool implementations - RSPLIB and the FH Münster
implementations -- I see the need for a common MIB definition to avoid
incompatible versions defined by different RSerPool system vendors.
Since the basic RSerPool protocol documents are already RFCs, there is
definitely the need to release a MIB for RSerPool, too.

I had a look at the document draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt. Except for
the missing "opaque transport parameter" issue found by Michael, I have
found no problems in the document.

Kind regards
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Nihad Cosic 
Computer and Network Engineer
University of Duisburg-Essen
Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB)
Ellernstr.29 
45326 Essen, Germany 
Tel: +49 (0) 201 183-7651 
Fax: +49 (0) 201 183-7673 
Mail: [email-masked] 
PGP-Key http://tdrwww.iem.uni-due.de/mitarbeiter/cosic/pubkey.asc
-----------------------------------------------------------------