Subject: Schedule for remote operations work

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT)

Hi - 

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.

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

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

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

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?

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           Email: [email-masked]      http://www.bmc.com     
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 In accordance with the BMC Communications Systems Use and Security
 Policy, I explicitly state that although my affiliation with BMC may be
 apparent, implied, or provided, my opinions are not necessarily those
 of BMC Software and that all external representations on behalf of
 BMC must first be cleared with a member of "the top management team."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 00:24:29 +0200

>>>>> Randy Presuhn writes:

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

[snip]

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

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

[snip]

I do agree with statement 1) and 2), but I am confused by the wordings
at the start of your message. For me, the remote operations work
within DISMAN is the Script MIB.

<draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-01.txt.gz> defines a ping/traceroute MIB
and we should stop calling this baby a "remote operations" 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)