Subject: Re: Schedule for remote operations work

From: Kenneth White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 20:57:38 -0400

Sorry, forgot to post the list back. ...Ken
---------------------- Forwarded by Kenneth White/Raleigh/IBM on 09/03/98 08:52
PM ---------------------------

Kenneth White
09/03/98 08:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
cc:
From: Kenneth White/Raleigh/IBM @ IBMUS
Subject: Re: Schedule for remote operations work

Randy,

>It looks like there's agreement for the addition of the remote
>operations work to our charter.

>Does anyone have any thoughts on a schedule for completion of the remote
>operations work?  As I see it, we'll be a bit distracted by the completion
>of our other items through the end of October.  Questions to resolve:

>    1) is there consensus on the MIB-based approach to addressing
>       the ping/traceroute functionality?
>       Strawman: yes, a dedicated MIB makes sense.

This was the consensus of the Chicago working group meeting.

>    2) is there any desire to narrow or broaden the functional
>       scope of this draft?
>       Strawman: no need to go beyond ping and traceroute.

I just posted a new draft. As a result of the discussion in Chicago
I removed DNS support from both the ping and traceroute tables. I
then added a dnsLookupTable to support gethostbyname() and
gethostbyaddr() type of support.

>    3) are the options and their handling sufficiently well
>       defined?
>       Strawman: no.  for example, remopsTraceRouteMiscOptions
>       is wide open.

OK. An example is that on an MVS system there can be multiple TCP/IPs
running on the same image (LPAR). In this environment there typically
is an option to direct a client/cmd to a particular TCP/IP. I consider
this type of option to be system dependent and as such have not made
it an explicit parameter object.

>    4) is the set of options supported necessary and sufficient?
>       Strawman: it's a bit broad.

What do you mean precisely.

>Do those committed to commenting on this work believe we could
>comment on and spin the draft to have it ready for working group
>last call in December?

I'm willing to work on internet-draft updates and pursue last call
in December.

Ken

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 16:16:39 -0400

>At 9/4/98 03:28 PM, David Levi wrote:

Hi David,

<...from dbh...>
>> I stringly support breaking this into separate MIB modules,
>> even if they are defined in one document.
>
>I also think this is a good idea.

I do too.

>At a minimum, there should probably be compliance statements to
>allow you to implement the ping stuff, traceroute stuff, and dns
>stuff independently, i.e., not require all three to be supported,
>but allow any combination of the three

Right (where "combination" also includes the option of any one of
the three as well as those with any two or more).

>(although you might want to require the ping or traceroute stuff
>if you're going to do the dns stuff).

I can see the rationale for that, but would prefer to keep the
three separate (for compliance)...for added flexibility.

Cordially,

BobN
------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier -----------
Bob Natale         | ACE*COMM              | 301-721-3000 [v]
Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f]
[email-masked]| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com
------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com -------------