Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!SRI-NIC.ARPA!tcp-ip-RELAY From: tcp-ip-RELAY@SRI-NIC.ARPA ("tcp-ip-RELAY%SRI-NIC.ARPA") Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: (none) Message-ID: <8711251050.AA13731@umix.cc.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 17:44:16 EST Article-I.D.: umix.8711251050.AA13731 Posted: Tue Nov 24 17:44:16 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 08:43:03 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 32 , trewitt@miasma.stanford.edu, LYNCH@a.isi.edu, tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa, netman@amadeus.stanford.edu, gwmon@sh.cs.net Date: Tue, 24 Nov 87 14:44:16 PST To: userID=DUM1@SFU.MAILNET, trewitt@MIASMA.STANFORD.EDU, LYNCH@A.ISI.EDU, tcp-ip@SRI-NIC.ARPA, netman@AMADEUS.STANF Subject: Re: Network Management My concern is rather the opposite of the others that I have heard. I am concerned that participants in the closed Netman meeting have made a decision which, although plausible, will have no effect other than excluding them from the IP community. It is clear that HEMS and SGMP will be implemented by the major gateway vendors, and on Unix. (I wish we could pick one or the other, but I have a feeling we will end up with both HEMS and SGMP everywhere.) This will happen by January. The hope had been that we could avoid completely separate IP and ISO implementations by the work of the Netman group. If this has really failed, the result will be separate IP and ISO work, not CMIS over IP. Experience is very clear that a few months delay in this business is fatal. It is probably not too late to make extensions to HEMS if necessary to allow the Netman group to meet its goals. In my view it is too late to come up with another protocol. I am hoping that all of the participants in Netman can somehow be persuaded to try again. I think we need to find a way to make things proceed according to the original gameplan. In this context it is important to avoid seeing the issue as somehow "the vendors" against the IP community. Not all vendors were present at the meeting. Indeed the purveyors of the major gateway implementations were noticable by their absence. So I'd like to see us avoid using "the vendors" as if there were one such entity, and they all adopted the same position. I am in fact avoiding assigning any term to those who participated in the meeting in question, since I am unable to find any term that is not emotionally loaded.