Louis A. Mamakos (louie@trantor.UMD.EDU)
Fri, 27 Nov 87 10:57:36 EST
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 18:09:37 EST
From: email@example.com (Phill Gross)
Subject: re: Network Management
> 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.
As a customer of network products, I'm not interested in the "appearance" of
a product in anyway; just what it does. It seems that products developed
to "soothe" customers and as useful as those developed to actually solve my
I was kinda glad that the vendors I buy products from weren't listed as being
part of the group that made this decision. If I can't buy it, I'll have to
build it myself. The vendor that builds it for me gets my business. The
appearence of ISO compatibility is not something that I'd go out and build.
Just wanted to give you another "customer's" perspective.
Louis A. Mamakos
University of Maryland
Computer Science Center
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:57 GMT