headers
Randy Presuhn | 9 Jan 2005 21:00
Picon

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]

Hi -

> From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins <at> dsperkins.com>
> To: "C. M. Heard" <heard <at> pobox.com>
> Cc: "Mark Ellison" <ellison <at> ieee.org>; "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview <at> ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]
...
>  5) lack of a usable log (RFC 3014 doesn't cut it)
...

If you care to spell out just what the problem with
RFC 3014 is, those comments would be most welcome on
the disman WG mailing list.  I would hope that you could be
a bit more precise than "just doesn't cut it," however.

Randy Presuhn
disman WG chair
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andy Bierman | 14 Jan 2005 20:25
Picon
Favicon

RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes

At 07:59 AM 1/14/2005, Saverio Niccolini wrote:
>Dear all,
>thanks a lot for your useful suggestions.

This work is already established in the DISMAN WG.  See RFC 2925,
or its update (in progress):
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-06.txt

I strongly urge you to work with the DISMAN WG to resolve
perceived deficiencies with the RemOps MIB, rather than
create a spin-off MIB.

Andy

>We have tried to draft a "traceroute object" based on what we discussed
>on the list and what we had in mind. We think this will serve as a
>starting point of our information model.
>
>We have taken the disman draft as a starting point and we have erased
>some fields not useful in the scope of our draft (that we do not specify
>here), moreover we have added and changed other ones:
>
>NEW fields:
>1) traceRouteResultsLastGoodPathDuration (duration of single running of
>the last good traceroute path determination)
>2) traceRouteResultsLastRun (when the last traceroute with these
>characteristics was launched)
>3) traceRouteHopsASNumber (AS number of the hop)
>
>CHANGED fields:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Juergen Quittek | 17 Jan 2005 10:52
Picon

RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes

Hi Andy,

--On 14.01.2005 20:25 Uhr +0100 Andy Bierman wrote:

> At 07:59 AM 1/14/2005, Saverio Niccolini wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> thanks a lot for your useful suggestions.
>
> This work is already established in the DISMAN WG.  See RFC 2925,
> or its update (in progress):
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-06.txt

Saverio and Sandra already had a look at the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB.

> I strongly urge you to work with the DISMAN WG to resolve
> perceived deficiencies with the RemOps MIB, rather than
> create a spin-off MIB.

As editor of draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-06.txt I wonder
what you consider as 'perceived deficiencies with the RemOps MIB'.

In the context of IPPM, there is certainly the deficiency, that
you can only store measurements that were performed locally and that
the tables for storing measurement results are read-only.

But anyway, does the IPPM WG plan to store traceroute results in a MIB?

Thanks,

    Juergen
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andy Bierman | 17 Jan 2005 18:25
Picon
Favicon

RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes

At 08:36 AM 1/17/2005, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>Saverio,
>
>>By the way, I do not know if the IPPM list agrees on this.
>>Does the IPPM charter want to define a MIB module for traceroute
>>measurements?
>
>Given the lack of interest in the previous MIB we discussed, and
>the lack of expertise to review any proposal, I'd say: NO.

And since this seems to be an extension to a standard developed in the 
DISMAN WG, if this work belongs anywhere in the IETF, it's DISMAN. 

>Henk

Andy

>>Best regards,
>>Saverio
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:quittek <at> netlab.nec.de]
>>> Sent: 17 January 2005 10:53
>>> To: Andy Bierman; Saverio Niccolini
>>> Cc: disman <at> ietf.org; ippm <at> ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes
>>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> --On 14.01.2005 20:25 Uhr +0100 Andy Bierman wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Saverio Niccolini | 17 Jan 2005 14:03
Picon

RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes

Hi Andy,
the purpose of our draft is to define a file format in order to store
traceroute measurements and not a MIB module.
The confusion is maybe created by the fact that we just kept the names
from the disman draft-RFC in order to facilitate comprehension of the
fields itself.

By the way, I do not know if the IPPM list agrees on this.
Does the IPPM charter want to define a MIB module for traceroute
measurements?

Best regards,
Saverio

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:quittek <at> netlab.nec.de]
> Sent: 17 January 2005 10:53
> To: Andy Bierman; Saverio Niccolini
> Cc: disman <at> ietf.org; ippm <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> --On 14.01.2005 20:25 Uhr +0100 Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> > At 07:59 AM 1/14/2005, Saverio Niccolini wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >> thanks a lot for your useful suggestions.
> >
> > This work is already established in the DISMAN WG.  See RFC 2925,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 751 comments |
headers
Henk Uijterwaal | 17 Jan 2005 17:36
Picon
Favicon

RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes

Saverio,

>By the way, I do not know if the IPPM list agrees on this.
>Does the IPPM charter want to define a MIB module for traceroute
>measurements?

Given the lack of interest in the previous MIB we discussed, and
the lack of expertise to review any proposal, I'd say: NO.

Henk

>Best regards,
>Saverio
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:quittek <at> netlab.nec.de]
> > Sent: 17 January 2005 10:53
> > To: Andy Bierman; Saverio Niccolini
> > Cc: disman <at> ietf.org; ippm <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [ippm] Way to store traceroutes
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > --On 14.01.2005 20:25 Uhr +0100 Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > > At 07:59 AM 1/14/2005, Saverio Niccolini wrote:
> > >> Dear all,
> > >> thanks a lot for your useful suggestions.
> > >
> > > This work is already established in the DISMAN WG.  See RFC 2925,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 752 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 17 Jan 2005 23:43
Picon

Fw: Approval to Post Version -00 Internet-Drafts for the 62nd IETFMeeting in Minneapolis, MN

Hi -

My internet access in the first half of February will be very limited, possibly zero.
If you intend to submit something as a draft-ietf-disman-* internet draft,
please let me know before January 30.  Absent substantial
discussion on the WG mailing list, the only things I will consider accepting
as WG documents are updates to our existing RFCs.

Randy Presuhn
disman WG chair

> From: "Internet-Drafts Administrator" <internet-drafts <at> ietf.org>
> To: "Working Group Chairs" <wgchairs <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 6:56 AM
> Subject: Approval to Post Version -00 Internet-Drafts for the 62nd IETFMeeting in Minneapolis, MN
>

> Dear IETF Working Group Chairs:
>
> In order to expedite the processing of the many version -00 I-Ds that
> the Secretariat  receives before an IETF meeting, we ask that you please
> notify the Secretariat prior to the initial submission cutoff date of all
> version -00 I-Ds that you expect to approve for posting as WG documents.
> Please send the filenames of your approved -00 I-Ds to internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
> by no later than five (5) business days prior to the cutoff date for -00 submissions,
> or by Monday, February 7th at 9:00 AM ET for the 62nd IETF Meeting. Please include
> the word "Approved I-Ds" in the "Subject" field. This procedure will help to ensure
> that version -00 I-Ds are posted in a timely manner, allowing more time for review
> by the public.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 19 Jan 2005 23:07
Picon

disman WG session in Minneapolis?

Hi -

Does anyone see a need for a meeting slot for the disman WG in Minneapolis?
If I don't see rationale and support on this list for a meeting, my plan is to
not request a slot.  Due to my own travel plans, I need to reach a decision
by January 30.

Randy

> From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
> To: "IETF Announcement list" <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:05 AM
> Subject: BOF scheduling for IETF 62
>

> Folks,
> I would like to draw your attention to two things about scheduling of BOFs at
> the IETF 62 meeting.
>
> FIRST - we've advanced the deadline for scheduling a bit this year. The
> scheduling deadline for "normal" requests is February 7.
> We also have an "absolutely latest" deadline for those things that pop up at the
> last moment, but we're going to ask you to try VERY hard to get all the "normal"
> things in by Feb 7, so that we can get the schedule firmed up at an earlier date
> than usual.
>
> The WG chairs know this, of course, but the people who want to arrange BOFs in
> Minneapolis may not have noticed the dates yet.
>
> SECOND - we're resurrecting the procedure that we had up until March 2003 of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane