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

Re: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues

on 06/22/2000 2:09 PM, Andrew Smith at andrew@extremenetworks.com wrote:

> Not sure what "we omit this capability" means in this context.
> Conflict detection needs to be done, for efficiency reasons, as well as
> "correctness", at *each* level of a policy management system. e.g.
> - human has to not click on 2 contradictory things at the same time
> - policy mgmt system has to make sure that contradictory things are not
> stored in its database at the same time

Agreed. This is part of what I mentioned in an earlier posting in response
to David H. One place this may be noted is in the BCP.

> - SNMP MIB must not have 2 ways of configuring the same thing (else neither
> manager nor agent can check - see below)
> - SNMP manager has to make sure that it does not include 2 contradictory SET
> varbinds in the same PDU
> - SNMP agent has to check for same
> - low-level classifier has to be unambiguous
> etc.
All these points make good sense to me and we should include them in the
policy section of the BCP - I am going to focus on that between now and ID

> Some of these things are implementation common sense. Some of them involve
> sensible MIB design. Some of them involve providing hooks such that
> implementations can do the right thing (the "this instance is under local
> control" bit that we've discussed is an example of this).
> I don't have any firm proposals, but we cannot just sweep this one under the
> carpet. It needs to be considered at all stages in this WG's work and some
> sort of write-up needs to be present in the documents, even if there are no
> specific protocol or data structure implications.
Thanks for the suggestions. At least for now, we can hold these topics in
the BCP.