Re: Network Management


Charles Hedrick (hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu)
Tue, 24 Nov 87 17:44:17 EST


My concern is rather the opposite of the others that I have heard. I
am concerned that participants in the closed Netman meeting have made
a decision which, although plausible, will have no effect other than
excluding them from the IP community. It is clear that HEMS and SGMP
will be implemented by the major gateway vendors, and on Unix. (I
wish we could pick one or the other, but I have a feeling we will end
up with both HEMS and SGMP everywhere.) This will happen by January.
The hope had been that we could avoid completely separate IP and ISO
implementations by the work of the Netman group. If this has really
failed, the result will be separate IP and ISO work, not CMIS over IP.
Experience is very clear that a few months delay in this business is
fatal. It is probably not too late to make extensions to HEMS if
necessary to allow the Netman group to meet its goals. In my view it
is too late to come up with another protocol. I am hoping that all of
the participants in Netman can somehow be persuaded to try again. I
think we need to find a way to make things proceed according to the
original gameplan.

In this context it is important to avoid seeing the issue as somehow
"the vendors" against the IP community. Not all vendors were present
at the meeting. Indeed the purveyors of the major gateway
implementations were noticable by their absence. So I'd like to see
us avoid using "the vendors" as if there were one such entity, and
they all adopted the same position. I am in fact avoiding assigning
any term to those who participated in the meeting in question, since I
am unable to find any term that is not emotionally loaded.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:57 GMT