Subject: [Videomgmt] The initial proposal...

From: "Tendolkar Mohit" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:45:11 -0700

Hi Ray,

Before we proceed to the MIB specific details, could you please clarify
whether PESA is willing to update portions of its initial proposal to
accommodate other existing IETF MIBs?

The reason I am asking this is based on previous experiences, vendors
wanted to "standardize" their MIB efforts "as is" without allowing
significant updates to their proposals based on recommended or existing
standards because it would "break" their implementations already
available on the market. I see that the PESA MIBs have been drawn up
starting from mid-2002, so I reckon, there are products already
supporting these MIB modules?

So before we spend the time and effort in drawing up a true open MIB, it
now becomes important to understand the stance of the initial proposal.
The PESA MIBs are certainly and without doubt generic and truly useful
MIBs as a starting point, but given the usage of the other standardized
MIBs (ENTITY MIB, for instance) in conjunction with these modules will
imply certain structural changes to the proposed modules. How strong is
PESA on retaining the proposed MIB modules "as is"?

Regards,

Mohit Tendolkar
Thomson (Grass Valley)

_______________________________________________
Videomgmt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/videomgmt

---

From: "Ray, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:08:34 -0500

Hi Mohit.

Responses inline...

Regards,
Bob Ray

---------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tendolkar Mohit [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:45 AM
To: Ray, Robert; [email-masked]
Subject: The initial proposal...

>Hi Ray,
>
>Before we proceed to the MIB specific details, could you please 
>clarify whether PESA is willing to update portions of its initial 
>proposal to accommodate other existing IETF MIBs?

PESA is committed to this effort and hold no reservations about 
revising our products to support these efforts.  As a programmer, I do 
like what I did (wrt the three MIBs) but am by no means wedded to them.
I welcome improvements and interoperability.  I believe our customers 
would welcome that as well.  Even if it means starting from scratch.

>standards because it would "break" their implementations already
available 
>on the market. I see that the PESA MIBs have been drawn up starting for

>mid-2002, so I reckon, there are products already supporting these MIB 
>modules?

Yes, PESA is shipping products that support the MIBs.  Technically,
however, 
We have no problem supporting multiple MIBs in one agent.  If we (the
list and
possible working group) devise one or more standardized MIBs which works

across multiple vendors, it would exist in a different branch (as it
would 
have IANA-assigned identifiers, etc.).  We (PESA) would simply add
another 
subtree to our agent (of course, there may be some instrumentation
details, 
but that's how we programmers earn our keep!)

>So before we spend the time and effort in drawing up a true open MIB, 
>it now becomes important to understand the stance of the initial
proposal. 
>The PESA MIBs are certainly and without doubt generic and truly useful
MIBs,
>but given the usage of the ENTITY MIB (for instance) in conjunction
with 
>these modules will imply certain structural changes to the proposed
modules.
>How strong is PESA on retaining the proposed MIB "as is"?

The stance is as I've said: the MIBs are simply placeholders, a
suggested 
start, that could be reamed asunder by the advancements and concerns of
an 
open working group.  And I would welcome such involvement.  Truly.  I
value my
good name (such as it is) too much to try anything less.  Further, it
would be 
transparent to the IETF Area Directors and we would never get anything
done 
anyway...