Subject: [OPS-AREA] Judging COPS-PR interest

From: Michael Kirkham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:56:47 -0700 (PDT)

There was some discussion at today's the ops-area meeting regarding an 
apparent lack of interest in COPS-PR amongst the IETF.  I was the lone 
raised indicating that at least one of my customers is doing COPS-PR PIB 
development (I know that they were specifically after that capability and 
seeking guidance).  Bert suggested I should comment on the list so it 
would not get lost.

I tried to look up some more data.  In general I don't ask whether 
customers are doing MIB or PIB development, so it is difficult to 
determine actual current interest/usage beyond that.  For a while (2003 - 
late 2005) I was tracking interest via surveys, but haven't since. 
Without giving away too much, I can say that interest amongst survey 
respondants during that period was in the low double digits percentage 
wise, with uncalculated margin of error.  The target audience for such 
surveys was MIB and PIB module authors.

Certainly out of date info, and not a scientific survey, etc., but perhaps 
is useful information for getting a very rough idea of interest.

--
Michael Kirkham
President & CEO
Muonics, Inc.
http://www.muonics.com/

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:06:59 +0200

Michael,

Can you be more clear if possible? You mention that one of your
customers is doing COPS-PR PIB development - is he an operator or
end-user of networking equipment? 

You also mention customers from the years 2003-2005. What are these low
double digit percentages? Assuming this means 15-20% what does this
mean, 15-20% out of what type of customers population.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kirkham [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 6:57 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [OPS-AREA] Judging COPS-PR interest
> 
> 
> There was some discussion at today's the ops-area meeting 
> regarding an apparent lack of interest in COPS-PR amongst the 
> IETF.  I was the lone raised indicating that at least one of 
> my customers is doing COPS-PR PIB development (I know that 
> they were specifically after that capability and seeking 
> guidance).  Bert suggested I should comment on the list so it 
> would not get lost.
> 
> I tried to look up some more data.  In general I don't ask 
> whether customers are doing MIB or PIB development, so it is 
> difficult to determine actual current interest/usage beyond 
> that.  For a while (2003 - late 2005) I was tracking interest 
> via surveys, but haven't since. 
> Without giving away too much, I can say that interest amongst 
> survey respondants during that period was in the low double 
> digits percentage wise, with uncalculated margin of error.  
> The target audience for such surveys was MIB and PIB module authors.
> 
> Certainly out of date info, and not a scientific survey, 
> etc., but perhaps is useful information for getting a very 
> rough idea of interest.
> 
> --
> Michael Kirkham
> President & CEO
> Muonics, Inc.
> http://www.muonics.com/
> 
>

---

From: Michael Kirkham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:06:59 +0200
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
> To: Michael Kirkham <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Judging COPS-PR interest
> 
> Michael,
>

I would assume, based on the organization, developer of networking 
equipment supporting COPS-PR.  I do not know for certain (just as possible 
they're using COPS-PR internally).

> mean, 15-20% out of what type of customers population.

Difficult to give anything with that tight of a range: the data I pulled 
was of people looking for MIB editor/compiler tools (which I would assume 
to be mostly developers), who checked one or more of a fixed set of 
features they were interested in, versus the subset of those who checked 
PIB editor/compiler capabilities in the set.  The data spans time both 
before and after PIB editor/compiler capabilities were implemented, and a 
pretty wide time period, so actual interest could be significantly skewed 
either way: prior to implementation, the population would be mostly MIB 
editor/compiler seekers incidentally also interested in PIBs, while after 
could include people specifically seeking PIB tools.

People who didn't check any feature were specifically excluded from the 
statistic.  That's roughly two thirds of evaluators excluded, so, very 
wide error margins.

Given those constraints, I'll say the the loose number that popped out was 
above 10% and below 20%, but won't get more specific than that.

--
Michael Kirkham
President & CEO
Muonics, Inc.
http://www.muonics.com/

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:45:26 +0100

> is useful information for getting a very rough idea of interest.

Since we are doing non-scientific data analysis and interpretation (in
short wild guessing), let me mention that we have seen almost no bug
reports for the SPPI support in libsmi.

(I leave it to your interpretation whether you believe our code is
 just too good or simply noboy uses it or those who uses are smart
 enough to fix our bugs without ever reporting to us.)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		 Jacobs University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany