[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: snmpconf General Functional Questions


I think that making the solution TOO simple, may result it in being
implementable and deployable, but not useful. We probably agree on this. 

However, I do not understand your example about the 'exempted' element. Do
you mean that once a value was overridden, the respective instance can't be
touched any longer, until the 'touch' bit in Joel's second table is cleared?
Who clears this table?



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jon Saperia [SMTP:saperia@mediaone.net]
> Sent:	Fri June 09 2000 21:38
> To:	snmpconf@snmp.com
> Cc:	rap (E-mail)
> Subject:	Re: snmpconf General Functional Questions
> on 06/09/2000 2:43 PM, Andrew Smith at andrew@extremenetworks.com wrote:
> > We dived into this can of worms with COPS-PR. We very quickly swam to
> the
> > edge of the can and got out again and declared (a) time-of-day in the
> device
> > and (b) multiple managers, to be out of scope. Yes, this limits the
> areas of
> > application of the protocol but it does make it implementable and
> > deployable.
> I can see how putting these items out of scope of that work does simplify
> things. I hope we can take a middle ground in terms of assumptions and yet
> get a good improvement. For example, by allowing for the 'override' but
> not
> attempting to roll back and keeping the element 'exempted' once a value
> has
> been overridden. One tool that we do have that may make it more reasonable
> is that we do have access and visibility into the instance specific data.
> /jon