I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Reliable Server Pooling Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Reliable Server Pooling: Management Information Base using SMIv2
	Author(s)	: T. Dreibholz, J. Mulik
	Filename	: draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt
	Pages		: 41
	Date		: 2008-10-9
	
RSerPool [RFC5351] is a framework to provide reliable server pooling.
   This document defines a SMIv2 compliant Management Information Base
   (MIB) providing access to managed objects in an RSerPool
   implementation.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
rserpool <at> ietf.org

WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
rserpool <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

Ong, Lyndon skrev:
> Hi Folks,
> 
>  
> 
> There is one remaining draft on our list of WG drafts, which is the MIB
> draft.  We would like to start WG Last Call on this draft and get this
> ready for IESG review as a potential Exp RFC as a companion to the others.
> 
>  
> 
> Please have a look at the current draft
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt) and
> provide comments back to the mailing list by Wednesday, October 29^th .
> 
>  

I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If there
are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend, MIB
doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
document where there are no interest.

Regards

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

> Please have a look at the current draft
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt) and
> provide comments back to the mailing list by Wednesday, October 29th.

Hi,

we currently apply RSerPool RSPLIB test setup do load distribution for compute services. Our compny
MegaconSystems Ltd. is new startup company developing Grid/distributed computing software product
and services. Having SNMP support would benefit for management integration into network management
tool. I have reviewed draft document and think is okay.

Kind regards,

Chris Singh
MegaconSystems Limited
30/9, Guru House, Old Rajinder Nagar
New Delhi, Delhi 110060, India

_________________________________________________________________
Searching for the best deals on travel? Visit MSN Travel.
http://in.msn.com/coxandkings

Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

Dear all,

I'm not an expert for MIBs...

The document looks OK to me except for one thing:

It looks like poolElementEntry does not provide support
for the Opaque transport parameter.

Best regards
Michael

On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> Ong, Lyndon skrev:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one remaining draft on our list of WG drafts, which is the  
>> MIB
>> draft.  We would like to start WG Last Call on this draft and get  
>> this
>> ready for IESG review as a potential Exp RFC as a companion to the  
>> others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please have a look at the current draft
>> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool- 
>> mib-07.txt) and
>> provide comments back to the mailing list by Wednesday, October  
>> 29^th .
>>
>>
>
> I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If  
> there
> are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend,  
> MIB
> doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> document where there are no interest.
>
> Regards
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
> Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
> S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> rserpool mailing list
> rserpool <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
>

Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
rserpool <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

> I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If there
> are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend,
> MIB
> doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> document where there are no interest.

	Dear all,

I am working with RSerPool for some research in the area of Network
Management particularly with regard to IPFIX. I think it is important to
define a specific common MIB for RSerPool. Without a MIB institutions
who work with RSerPool will define their own MIB, which leads to
incompatibility and inconsistency. Since the RSerPool core documents are
RFC now, I see the need that the MIB document proceeds to RFC too. I
agree with the opinion mentioned by Michael, that the Opaque transport
parameter is missing, else the draft is ok.

	Best regards,

	Jobin

--

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Dipl.-Wirt.-Inf. Jobin Pulinthanath
	Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems
	University of Duisburg-Essen
	Germany
	E-Mail: jp <at> iem.uni-due.de
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

Dear Magnus,

in our company DH Datentechnik, we actively deploy RSerPool for workload
distribution in a SimProcTC-based simulation pool. For our
administration, we strongly rely on SNMP-based tools. Having the
possibility to also administer different RSerPool systems would be a
great benefit for reducing our non-SNMP administration overhead.

I have reviewed the draft document draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt and
found - except for the missing opaque transport parameter mentioned by
Michael Tüxen - no problems. Since the core RSerPool documents are RFCs
now, I think it is quite useful to also bring the MIB document to RFC
soon. Otherwise, I see the problem that different RSerPool-based systems
use incompatible MIBs - which should be avoided.

--

-- 

Regards,

Dirk Hoffstadt

------------------------------------------------------------------
M.Sc. Dirk Hoffstadt
DH Datentechnik
45219 Essen
Germany
E-Mail: hoffstadt <at> dhdt.de
Internet:  http://www.dhdt.de
PGP-PublicKey: https://dhdt.de/private/dirkhoffstadt_pubpgp.asc
------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

> I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If
there
> are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend, MIB
> doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> document where there are no interest.

Dear all,

as system administrator of the Institute for Computer Science and
Business Information Systems at the University of Duisburg-Essen, I
maintain RSerPool setups for multiple projects in our university
network. For most tasks of my network administration work, I apply
SNMP-based management software. Since we currently already apply two
different RSerPool implementations - RSPLIB and the FH Münster
implementations -- I see the need for a common MIB definition to avoid
incompatible versions defined by different RSerPool system vendors.
Since the basic RSerPool protocol documents are already RFCs, there is
definitely the need to release a MIB for RSerPool, too.

I had a look at the document draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt. Except for
the missing "opaque transport parameter" issue found by Michael, I have
found no problems in the document.

Kind regards
--

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Nihad Cosic 
Computer and Network Engineer
University of Duisburg-Essen
Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB)
Ellernstr.29 
45326 Essen, Germany 
Tel: +49 (0) 201 183-7651 
Fax: +49 (0) 201 183-7673 
Mail: cosic <at> iem.uni-due.de 
PGP-Key http://tdrwww.iem.uni-due.de/mitarbeiter/cosic/pubkey.asc
-----------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
rserpool <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

Re: WG Last Call on the Rserpool MIB draft

Okay,

We seem to have some customers for this document. Then I have nothing
against moving it forward.

Cheers

Magnus

Magnus Westerlund skrev:
> Ong, Lyndon skrev:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>  
>>
>> There is one remaining draft on our list of WG drafts, which is the MIB
>> draft.  We would like to start WG Last Call on this draft and get this
>> ready for IESG review as a potential Exp RFC as a companion to the others.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please have a look at the current draft
>> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-07.txt) and
>> provide comments back to the mailing list by Wednesday, October 29^th .
>>
>>  
> 
> I have seen no reports that anyone has reviewed this document. If there
> are no other than the authors that have an interest in this document I
> think we should put a halt to the publication until there is a real
> demand for the MIB. The reason is that I don't really want to spend, MIB
> doctor review, AD, IESG and RFC-editor resources and cycles on a
> document where there are no interest.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
> Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
> S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> rserpool mailing list
> rserpool <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool
> 

--

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6                | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund <at> ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------