Subject: Re: Schedule for remote operations work

From: Kenneth White <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998 13:56:34 -0400

There have been a number of comments on the name of the internet-draft for the
remote ping/traceroute/dnslookup work,  whether one MIB or multiple MIBs
would be best or if even separate documents are necessary.

First, I have no problem with changing the compliance statements so that either
of the functions can be implemented independently. The three current functions
do
function independently with the spinLock object being the only one in common.

I'm not sure about breaking the three functions out into separate MIB modules.
I don't think that the three functions currently in the
REMOPS-MIB are at the same level that the TCP, UDP, IP MIBs
where with respect to RFC1213. If they are broken out into
separate MIBs but left in a single document what real benefit
is gained?

As I see it separating the functions enables the functions to
evolve independently. This does add some cost. In the case
of remote ping and traceroute I'm not sure that the benefit
of breaking them out is worth the cost

As to the name of the current submission the last proposal was:

> Distributed Ping and Traceroute MIB"

Instead how about:

  Definition of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and
  DNS Lookup Operations

Leaving the current document identifier: <draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-xx.txt>.
The REMOPS-MIB was registered with IANA as { experimental 84 } so I
would prefer to leave the module name a lone, but of course it could be
changed if consensus was to do so.

Ken

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 17:06:55 +0200

>>>>> Kenneth White writes:

Kenneth> I'm not sure about breaking the three functions out into
Kenneth> separate MIB modules.  I don't think that the three functions
Kenneth> currently in the REMOPS-MIB are at the same level that the
Kenneth> TCP, UDP, IP MIBs where with respect to RFC1213. If they are
Kenneth> broken out into separate MIBs but left in a single document
Kenneth> what real benefit is gained?

You can move a complete MIB module to a separate document without
breaking to much (means low costs).

Kenneth> As I see it separating the functions enables the functions to
Kenneth> evolve independently. This does add some cost. In the case of
Kenneth> remote ping and traceroute I'm not sure that the benefit of
Kenneth> breaking them out is worth the cost

I am curious: what is the cost added by separating the functions?
Costs tend to get high if MIBs have to take different evolutionary
pathes down the road.  You probably don't see a reason for different
evolutionary pathes now, but this might be completely different in 5-8
years from now.

Kenneth> As to the name of the current submission the last proposal

>> Distributed Ping and Traceroute MIB"

Is it a distributed ping, a distributed traceroute or a distributed
MIB? Why do we not simply call it a "Ping and Traceroute MIB"?

Kenneth> The REMOPS-MIB was registered with IANA as { experimental 84
Kenneth> } so I would prefer to leave the module name a lone, but of
Kenneth> course it could be changed if consensus was to do so.

I do care about the module name. The Script and Schedule MIBs use a
DISMAN prefix (DISMAN-SCRIPT-MIB and DISMAN-SCHEDULE-MIB) in order to
reduce the likelihood of name clashes and to make it clear who is
responsible for the MIB. Continuing this path, I would suggest to call
the broken down MIB modules DISMAN-PING-MIB and DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB.

							Juergen

Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)

---

From: David Levi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 10:22:53 -0400

> the broken down MIB modules DISMAN-PING-MIB and DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB.

And DISMAN-DNS-MIB.  These mibs will be moved from {experimental 84}
when they get on the standards track, so renaming them is not a problem

-Dave

---

From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 11:14:25 -0400

> the broken down MIB modules DISMAN-PING-MIB and DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB.
I also care about the module name.
I think DISMAN-PING-MIB and DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB should be fine.
(although I would have said "broken out" not "broken down")

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
#include <std.disclaimer> 
David Harrington  [email-masked] 
Spectrum Network Management Platform Core Group
Cabletron Systems Inc. 
-----------------------------------------------------