Subject: Re: questions on INFORM draft

From: "George Sheng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:56:56 +0000

>
> > * If vendors do want to help ISPs to improve inter-noc
> >    communication, then a generic agent would be a nice thing
> >    to do.
>
>Out of scope for IDR.

sounds to me like: things either happen inside IDR, or it just
does not happen at all. I think we can handle one more mailing
list, maybe [email-masked] (wg list for distributed
mangement) :-)

>Border "Glue" Protocol we may be but I don't want to see ASN.1
>in my routing streams.

george

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:26:35 -0400

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 04:56:56AM +0000, George Sheng wrote:
> does not happen at all.

The way I usually see it, which may not match reality, is:
o Customer has issue foo.  
o Customer puts it to their vendor that the issue bgp related,
  even if it really isn't.
o Vendor comes up with extension that mostly solves problem,
  but *might* be better solved a different way.

INFORM is nice if you want your O&M to come from your router.
If so, its bgp.

If you want the same info to come from an NMS in your AS and
you want NMS's to talk to each other to solve the problem,
then get the right stuff in the bgp mib and work with the OPS
group to get inter-noc stuff done. :-)

Give an engineer a "problem" without describing the whole thing
and you'll get a solution.  It just may not be the one you're
looking for.

> I think we can handle one more mailing

Well, you might be able to. :-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:35:01 -0700

Folks-

<ad>

 A procedural bit: accepting this draft as a WG doc requires
 addition of the corresponding work item to the WG charter.
 A charter update presumes evaluation of the WG progress, which
 will inevitably trigger the question of how the WG is doing on
 the base BGP spec.

</ad>

Alex