Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SOLBOURNE.NYSER.NET!schoff
From: schoff@SOLBOURNE.NYSER.NET ("Martin Lee Schoffstall")
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: DoD --> CMOT and SNMP
Message-ID: <8909211814.AA05124@solbourne.nyser.net>
Date: 21 Sep 89 18:14:13 GMT
References: <8909201748.AA15964@ulana.mitre.org>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 53


Stan,

I too am stirred to respond, to what appears to be a statesman like message
of yours.

 Being unable to define a government unique management protocol 
 {thank goodness} we strove to develop a single suite of 
 network management products form the internet community.  

You're clearly unable but you and your staff certainly seem to have tried.
Aren't their names on CMOT documents?  Hasn't MITRE participated
heavily in pushing CMOT as a major agenda item.  At interop88 I
heard what you had to say after the network management panel, you
were pushing then.

 Should the Army and the Navy join the ULANA program the above 
 will apply to them as well.

This would be unfortunate since clearly things have changed in a very
major way in the area of network management in just the last 12 months.
One doesn't want to be saddled with out of date concepts and technology
from past recommendations, and 2nd opinions can also be important to
test the validity and quality of past recommendations.

 3) Vendors that do not provide management agents for their 
 products (for example EXCELAN) are not providing the full suite 
 of necessary protocols and should, at all costs, be avoided.

Since you've left the arena of "facts" and entered into the arena
of recommendations here are a few to consider:

(1) Consultive recommendations should be considered from sources that have both
deep and current experience with Internet technology (for instance knowing
what is in an ARP table).  My personal favorite is Epilogue which has
implemented both CMOT and SNMP, they'll do anything for a buck :-)
but more importantly they do it VERY VERY well.

(2) Independant assement is very important, having a vested interested
in a recommendation needs to be stated and known.  I am of course an
co-author of SNMP.

(3) User input and reality input is very useful to make a good recommendation.
Because its on paper doesn't mean its real, because its an "International
Standard" doesn't mean it will work well.

(4) Recommending moving targets is painful for vendors and does nothing
for users.

Lastly, your message discusses the "facts" of NetworkManagement in ULANA,
whether they are good facts or not is another issue.

Martin Schoffstall