Hi - > From: "C. M. Heard" <[email protected]> > To: "Melinda Shore" <[email protected]> > Cc: "OPSAWG" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:18 PM > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Addition of Available Space to Host-Resources-MIB ... > That's true. However, the person doing the work is the one who > would have to decide if it's worth the effort. There is no > obligation on the part of an implementor to publish proprietary MIB > extensions. Being able to "just do it" and not go through any IETF > or RFC Editor process hassles is one of the upsides of the > proprietary MIB extension approach.
As I understand the post that started this thread, the problem is that there are important use cases that the Host-Resources-MIB does not adequately support. To address these use cases, managed systems need to make available an additional piece of information. For this to do anyone any good, this means (1) updating the instrumentation in the managed systems, and (2) making that information available in a reasonably "standardized" manner. Addressing (2) is best accomplished with an RFC, even if its "merely" informational. An unpublished proprietary MIB or extension MIB is of little value there. This discussion has thus far not touched on (1) at all, and I note that the folks who I know were most visible in Host-Resources-MIB implementations have been conspicuously absent from this discussion. Without some interest in (1), or at least some assurance that the major code bases might get updated, the main value of a document would be to describe the shortcoming and other possible operational workarounds, if they exist. Randy _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
