Phill Gross (email@example.com)
Wed, 25 Nov 87 18:09:37 EST
> I don't understand why it is useful to have something which is sort
> of vaguely like what we think CMIP is going to look like when it is
> done. Either you are compatible with an ISO standard or you're not.
> Being sort of close doesn't seem to buy all that much.
I have been informed in private that these days it is a wise
business decision to at least give the appearance of conforming to
OSI standards. Utilizing TCP and IP is fine because it is already
here, but for something that needs to implemented from scratch, I've
been told that many vendors feel contrained to an OSI solution.
The argument about avoiding development costs by not implementing
twice may not be as important as soothing nervous customers about
multi-vendor OSI interoperability. If vendors were only concerned
with not implementing twice, they might have taken a harder look at
the Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol (SGMP) effort.
SGMP is yet a third network management consortium effort that started about
the same time as (and has drawn from) HEMS and Netman. At the Boulder IETF
meeting, a very impressive real-time demo was given of a PC based SGMP
package (with whizbang color graphics) monitoring a real state-wide
regional network. My understanding is that C source code is available
for tested, interoperable implementations under BSD Unix, MS-DOS and two
other platforms. SGMP has been documented in a recent RFC and I think
there are plans for it be discussed at the upcoming Interoperability
conference. For vendors whose goal is to minimize development costs,
perhaps SGMP deserves a closer look.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:57 GMT