>Company X doesn't' use SNMP. >It can't do X. >We need many more things .
Yeah, right. We've heard this before. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFBXU5MHxtM&feature=youtu.be Listen to the first 10 minutes to Dr Case. Mike ________________________________________ From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Haoyu song <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 2:11:34 PM To: Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL; Randy Presuhn Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Thoughts on draft-song-opsawg-ntf I don't think we are trying anything "re-inventing the wheel". First, we didn't invent anything in this draft. Rather, we are providing an overview and summary of existing stuff. Second, even SNMP notification can do data push, it is still insufficient. Google has deprecated SNMP for a reason. Many other companies hold the similar view. Here are a few reasons: SNMP is for management plane, but we still need data directly from other planes, that's why we have IOAM and IPFIX. Also, SNMP can't support high bandwidth streaming, that's why we have gPRC. Sure, SNMP can bear some characteristics of telemetry and it can also continue to evolve to be more like it. But as I said, there's nothing black or white and SNMP is not sufficient and we need many more things and we already have many good and better stuff. Regards, Haoyu -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 12:20 PM To: Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Thoughts on draft-song-opsawg-ntf I, as a reader, still wonder about re-inventing the wheel - even with the 1st paragraph of 1.4 untouched. Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 18, 2018, at 14:12, Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi - > >> On 10/18/2018 12:58 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: >> Well, the first paragraph in section 1.4 is neither clear nor necessary. >> I would suggest to remove this paragraph. Is that OK for you? > > The paragraph does seem clear, but is (in my opinion) incorrect. > However, it appears to be an integral part of the rationale for doing > the proposed work. Removing the paragraph would leave the reader > wondering "why re-invent the wheel?" > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopsawg&data=02%7C01%7Cmrm%40vmware.com%7Ccae277838ebc419fce3908d6353e5601%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C1%7C0%7C636754939182154540&sdata=gyxXwolkFEBOamwnrpU5DzdjIllgararEyq%2B7LzkzUg%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fopsawg&data=02%7C01%7Cmrm%40vmware.com%7Ccae277838ebc419fce3908d6353e5601%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C1%7C0%7C636754939182154540&sdata=gyxXwolkFEBOamwnrpU5DzdjIllgararEyq%2B7LzkzUg%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
