> I think the "standards review process" is too slow. by the time i > convince them that these new points are of value, we'll have > added many more.
On the other hand, every vendor inventing a set of private MIBs for their own product doesn't improve the situation much over the long term, and it doesn't make the interoperability capability of the tools any better either. Supporting a bunch of private MIBs is complicated in a large configuration. IMHO, it'd be a lot better for everyone if there was a standardized performance management MIB already in place that every performance monitor vendor could work with. > They haven't even added the UCD mib set, many > of which are of extreme value to the standard host mib definition. > And these are close to a decade old. Actually, the UCD proposal to update the SMI is one of the things being considered in the review, so now would seem to be a good time to get your improvements into the hopper for this cycle. You have developed a usable set of measurements for capacity planning; I think the SNMP SMI standard would benefit from that expertise if you chose to contribute it. YMMV. -- db ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
