Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp status
From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: 28 Apr 2000 14:46:55 -0700

>>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:58:39 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:

Juergen> I agree. But having an experimental RFC is still much better
Juergen> than having no official document at all.

I definitely concur there!

Juergen> And IETF people ususally over estimate the importance of the
Juergen> RFC status. What really counts is what is being implemented
Juergen> and what is finally being used.

True, although I've heard of plenty of vendors that don't like
implementing things until they get to "draft".  I've heard of many
others that implement the first document written about a subject as
well though.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Distributed Computing Analysis and Support
University of California at Davis

From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp status 
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:44:11 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:38:25 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> I have uploaded a new revision of the document to the ID archive. It
> fixes the typos reported and it contains the updated acknowledment
> section. I think this is the final version.
> 
> ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-04.txt
> 
> I have also contacted the chairs of the SNMPv3 working group to figure
> out whether they think this draft should be considered by the SNMPv3
> WG. The response was that they prefer to submit this document for
> publication as Experimental RFC at this point in time.

OK

> The SNMPv3 chairs also suggested to post a message to the SNMPv3
> mailing list of our intention to submit this version as Experimental
> RFC to see whether there are any strong reactions in the larger SNMP
> community. I think this is actually a good idea. I plan to give the
> SNMP community 14 days to raise any comments on the document or our
> plan to go for Experimental RFC, unless I hear any objections against
> this plan.

Sounds very reasonable to me.

JP

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:58:39 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp status
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

>>>>> Wes Hardaker writes:

Wes> Judging by the amount of flack that SNMP has gotten recently in
Wes> other discussions for being only UDP based, I'd rather see it go
Wes> forward further in the standards track but I understand the
Wes> reasons behind the decision...

I agree. But having an experimental RFC is still much better than
having no official document at all.

And IETF people ususally over estimate the importance of the RFC
status. What really counts is what is being implemented and what is
finally being used.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp status
From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Organization: U.C.Davis, Information Technology - D.C.A.S.
Date: 28 Apr 2000 09:22:35 -0700
Lines: 12
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

>>>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:38:25 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:

Juergen> The response was that they prefer to submit this document for
Juergen> publication as Experimental RFC at this point in time.

Judging by the amount of flack that SNMP has gotten recently in other
discussions for being only UDP based, I'd rather see it go forward
further in the standards track but I understand the reasons behind the 
decision...

-- 
"Ninjas aren't dangerous.  They're more afraid of you than you are of them."

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:38:25 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] snmp over tcp status
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

I have uploaded a new revision of the document to the ID archive. It
fixes the typos reported and it contains the updated acknowledment
section. I think this is the final version.

ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-04.txt

I have also contacted the chairs of the SNMPv3 working group to figure
out whether they think this draft should be considered by the SNMPv3
WG. The response was that they prefer to submit this document for
publication as Experimental RFC at this point in time.

The SNMPv3 chairs also suggested to post a message to the SNMPv3
mailing list of our intention to submit this version as Experimental
RFC to see whether there are any strong reactions in the larger SNMP
community. I think this is actually a good idea. I plan to give the
SNMP community 14 days to raise any comments on the document or our
plan to go for Experimental RFC, unless I hear any objections against
this plan.

/js

To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp document revision
From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Organization: U.C.Davis, Information Technology - D.C.A.S.
Date: 25 Apr 2000 08:51:16 -0700
Lines: 26
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

>>>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:56:33 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:

Ron> Do you think that Bert Helthuis should be mentioned there also?
Ron> He made an implementation based on an older version of UCD SNMP
Ron> (version 3.6.2,
Ron> http://ing.ctit.utwente.nl/WU2/d2.1/snmp-tcp/patch01.tar)

Juergen> Well, Luca also did some implementation work, although he
Juergen> focussed on the manager side if I remember right.

Just, FYI (since it really doesn't matter): Luca's code did modify
both the agent and management apps.  However, the implementation
currently done in the ucd-snmp package is not based on his work at all 
(and is done differently to allow a dynamicly expandable char array to 
handle larger packets than Luca dealt with (limit currently set to
32768)).

The agent had been completely restructured when Luca sund us his
patch, and hence we couldn't apply it as was.

He should definitely be mentioned in the document though!

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Distributed Computing Analysis and Support
University of California at Davis

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:22:12 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp document revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

>>>>> Ron Sprenkels writes:

>> Shall I use that instead of the current wordings?

Ron> Yes, I think those wordings would be fine.

OK. I will use the reworded text unless I hear any objections.

/js

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:19:42 +0200
From: Ron Sprenkels <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp document revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

Hi,

> >> Finally, I changed the acknowledgments section to say thanks to our
> >> early implementors who made their code available. (I did not
> >> include Luca since I have no idea what status his code actually
> >> has.)
> 
> Ron> Do you think that Bert Helthuis should be mentioned there also?
> Ron> He made an implementation based on an older version of UCD SNMP
> Ron> (version 3.6.2,
> Ron> http://ing.ctit.utwente.nl/WU2/d2.1/snmp-tcp/patch01.tar)
> 
> Well, Luca also did some implementation work, although he focussed on
> the manager side if I remember right. And I think he also used some
> CMU derived package. I wanted to cite UCD and the Linux CMU agent
> because they have TCP support integrated into their distributions,
> which I think is important for other to "pick up and steal" ideas.
> 
> Here is a proposed rewording (in XML source) to address this:
> 
>   <t>
>     Additional thanks go to Luca Deri, Wes Hardaker, Bert Helthuis,
>     and Erik Schoenfelder for their prototype implementations. The
>     SNMP over TCP transport mapping is integrated in the current <eref
>     target="http://ucd-snmp.ucdavis.edu/">UCD SNMPpackage</eref> and
>     the current <eref target="http://www.gaertner.de/snmp/">Linux CMU
>     SNMP package</eref>.
>   </t>
> 
> Shall I use that instead of the current wordings?

Yes, I think those wordings would be fine.

Ron.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Sprenkels  [email-masked]   http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~sprenkel
University of Twente, Department of Computer Science, TSS Management group
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.    (Tel. +31 53 489 4663)

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:56:33 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp document revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

>>>>> Ron Sprenkels writes:

Ron> It has taken me some time to read this, due to time-consuming
Ron> happy events at home :-) His name is Robin, and he was born on
Ron> April 3.

Congratulations to all of you. I have seen Robin sleeping on your Web
page. But I guess this is a transient state which only lasts for a few
hours at best. ;-)
 
>> Finally, I changed the acknowledgments section to say thanks to our
>> early implementors who made their code available. (I did not
>> include Luca since I have no idea what status his code actually
>> has.)

Ron> Do you think that Bert Helthuis should be mentioned there also?
Ron> He made an implementation based on an older version of UCD SNMP
Ron> (version 3.6.2,
Ron> http://ing.ctit.utwente.nl/WU2/d2.1/snmp-tcp/patch01.tar)

Well, Luca also did some implementation work, although he focussed on
the manager side if I remember right. And I think he also used some
CMU derived package. I wanted to cite UCD and the Linux CMU agent
because they have TCP support integrated into their distributions,
which I think is important for other to "pick up and steal" ideas.

Here is a proposed rewording (in XML source) to address this:

  <t>
    Additional thanks go to Luca Deri, Wes Hardaker, Bert Helthuis,
    and Erik Schoenfelder for their prototype implementations. The
    SNMP over TCP transport mapping is integrated in the current <eref
    target="http://ucd-snmp.ucdavis.edu/">UCD SNMPpackage</eref> and
    the current <eref target="http://www.gaertner.de/snmp/">Linux CMU
    SNMP package</eref>.
  </t>

Shall I use that instead of the current wordings?
 
Ron> Small thing: I'm not completely sure, but shouldn't 'send' in the
Ron> second line of page #6 be 'sent'?

Changed to sent.

/js

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:04:34 +0200
From: Ron Sprenkels <[email-masked]>
Organization: University of Twente
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>, Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp document revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

Hi Juergen,
 
> I have updated our snmp over tcp specification. The new internet draft
> is <URL:ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-03.txt>.

It has taken me some time to read this, due to time-consuming happy events
at home :-) His name is Robin, and he was born on April 3. 
 
> I incorporated the changes discussed in Oslo (connection management,
> discussion of confirmed operations versus reliable transport).
> 
> I reformatted the document using the XML DTD (RFC 2629). (The idea is
> that all IDs we are producing will be written in XML so that it is
> move responsibility for these documents.)

I don't fully understand what you mean here, but anyway, I think the
formatting of the draft is very consistent everywhere now. Which, I guess,
is to be expected if the formatting is generated from an XML document. I
really like that.
 
> Finally, I changed the acknowledgments section to say thanks to our
> early implementors who made their code available. (I did not include
> Luca since I have no idea what status his code actually has.)

Do you think that Bert Helthuis should be mentioned there also? He made an
implementation  based on an older version of UCD SNMP (version 3.6.2,
http://ing.ctit.utwente.nl/WU2/d2.1/snmp-tcp/patch01.tar)
 
> Please check this revision and let us know if there are any issues
> with it. Otherwise, I would like to move this forward by submitting it
> for experimental RFC.

No issues as far as I'm concerned.

Small thing: I'm not completely sure, but shouldn't 'send' in the second
line of page #6 be 'sent'?

regards,

Ron.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Sprenkels  [email-masked]   http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~sprenkel
University of Twente, Department of Computer Science, TSS Management group 
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.    (Tel. +31 53 489 4663)

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:16:27 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] SCTP
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

>>>>> J P Martin-Flatin writes:

JP> You might be interested in reading about SCTP, which lies
JP> somewhere between TCP and UDP:

JP> draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-08.txt
JP> draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-applicability-00.txt

JP> Perhaps a good candidate to transport policies.

JP> Juergen, what about an SNMP over SCTP mapping?  ;-)

Go ahead if you think this makes sense.

(Personally, I have no clue how to implement something like this 
since a new transport protocol will take years to become universally
available. But this is of course not an argument for not doing a
transport mapping for SCTP or even implementing SCTP in your 
favourite kernel.)

/js

From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] SCTP
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:22:45 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

Remember Bert's pointer to RUTS when we began talking about SNMP over
TCP? This is now discussed by the SIGTRAN and PILC WGs at the IETF
(Transport Area). You might be interested in reading about SCTP, which
lies somewhere between TCP and UDP:

  draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-08.txt
  draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-applicability-00.txt

Perhaps a good candidate to transport policies.

Juergen, what about an SNMP over SCTP mapping?   ;-)

JP

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:14:05 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: snmp over tcp document revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> Maybe it is good to feel the SNMPv3 list as to what they think
Bert> about PS.  If you want to do that, pls check with WG chairs if
Bert> they can agree that you use their mlist.

I have contacted the WG chairs and I will start a poll on the SNMPv3
list for opinions once I have green lights.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] RE: snmp over tcp document revision
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:38:31 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

If you want to get this on Stds track, and you think the doc is ready for
that
(as you seem to claim), then it migth be good to also post to the SNMPv3
list that
this document is in final review in NMRG group and that you plan to ask for
Experimental or PS document. If experimental ,then I would prefer to not
include the IPv6 over UDP mapping in here, because that I would like to 
see start at PS rigth away.

Maybe it is good to feel the SNMPv3 list as to what they think about PS.
If you want to do that, pls check with WG chairs if they can agree that you
use their mlist.

Bert

> ----------
> From: 	Juergen Schoenwaelder[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Friday, April 07, 2000 10:11 AM
> To: 	Network Management Research Group; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Subject: 	snmp over tcp document revision
> 
> 
> I have updated our snmp over tcp specification. The new internet draft
> is <URL:ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-03.txt>.
> 
> I incorporated the changes discussed in Oslo (connection management,
> discussion of confirmed operations versus reliable transport). 
> 
> I reformatted the document using the XML DTD (RFC 2629). (The idea is
> that all IDs we are producing will be written in XML so that it is
> move responsibility for these documents.)
> 
> Finally, I changed the acknowledgments section to say thanks to our
> early implementors who made their code available. (I did not include
> Luca since I have no idea what status his code actually has.)
> 
> Please check this revision and let us know if there are any issues
> with it. Otherwise, I would like to move this forward by submitting it
> for experimental RFC.
> 
> Bert, there is an open action item in the IETF regarding the SNMP over
> UDP/IPv6 transport mapping. Do you think it makes sense to extend our
> document with definitions for SNMP over TCP/IPv6 and SNMP over
> UDP/IPv6 so that it can actually go onto the standards track? In this
> case, we could actually skip the experimental RFC for SNMP over TCP.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
> <[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
> Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
> 
> 

From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] snmp over tcp document revision 
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 04:39:44 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:11:16 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> Please check this revision and let us know if there are any issues
> with it.

I am happy with it.

> Otherwise, I would like to move this forward by submitting it
> for experimental RFC.

Please do.

Jean-Philippe

Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 10:11:16 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>, Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] snmp over tcp document revision
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: RO

I have updated our snmp over tcp specification. The new internet draft
is <URL:ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-03.txt>.

I incorporated the changes discussed in Oslo (connection management,
discussion of confirmed operations versus reliable transport). 

I reformatted the document using the XML DTD (RFC 2629). (The idea is
that all IDs we are producing will be written in XML so that it is
move responsibility for these documents.)

Finally, I changed the acknowledgments section to say thanks to our
early implementors who made their code available. (I did not include
Luca since I have no idea what status his code actually has.)

Please check this revision and let us know if there are any issues
with it. Otherwise, I would like to move this forward by submitting it
for experimental RFC.

Bert, there is an open action item in the IETF regarding the SNMP over
UDP/IPv6 transport mapping. Do you think it makes sense to extend our
document with definitions for SNMP over TCP/IPv6 and SNMP over
UDP/IPv6 so that it can actually go onto the standards track? In this
case, we could actually skip the experimental RFC for SNMP over TCP.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>