Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!TRANTOR.UMD.EDU!louie From: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU ("Louis A. Mamakos") Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Network Management Message-ID: <8711271557.AA14469@trantor.UMD.EDU> Date: Fri, 27-Nov-87 10:57:36 EST Article-I.D.: trantor.8711271557.AA14469 Posted: Fri Nov 27 10:57:36 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 22:04:05 EST References: <8711252309.AA05871@gateway.mitre.org> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 42 Date: Wed, 25 Nov 87 18:09:37 EST From: gross@gateway.mitre.org (Phill Gross) Message-Id: <8711252309.AA05871@gateway.mitre.org> Subject: re: Network Management > I don't understand why it is useful to have something which is sort > of vaguely like what we think CMIP is going to look like when it is > done. Either you are compatible with an ISO standard or you're not. > Being sort of close doesn't seem to buy all that much. Ross, I have been informed in private that these days it is a wise business decision to at least give the appearance of conforming to OSI standards. Utilizing TCP and IP is fine because it is already here, but for something that needs to implemented from scratch, I've been told that many vendors feel contrained to an OSI solution. The argument about avoiding development costs by not implementing twice may not be as important as soothing nervous customers about multi-vendor OSI interoperability. If vendors were only concerned with not implementing twice, they might have taken a harder look at the Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol (SGMP) effort. As a customer of network products, I'm not interested in the "appearance" of a product in anyway; just what it does. It seems that products developed to "soothe" customers and as useful as those developed to actually solve my problems. I was kinda glad that the vendors I buy products from weren't listed as being part of the group that made this decision. If I can't buy it, I'll have to build it myself. The vendor that builds it for me gets my business. The appearence of ISO compatibility is not something that I'd go out and build. Just wanted to give you another "customer's" perspective. Louis A. Mamakos University of Maryland Computer Science Center