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

RE: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues


So, the current state of a system ('attributes of instances') would be the
result of the current pollicies, as well as of the previously deleted
policies. If I assume the latest are not visible any longer, how would
somebody look at the system and understand what is going on?


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Joel M. Halpern [SMTP:joel@mcquillan.com]
> Sent:	Sun June 25 2000 0:24
> To:	snmpconf
> Subject:	Re: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues
> It is my opinion that deleting a policy should not directly cause a change
> in any attributes of any instances.  It may be reasonable to expect 
> (depending upon our evaluation model) that the set of policies in effect 
> should be re-evaluated, which my cause some existing policy to change the 
> values of some objects.  Trying to perform a direct "unwinding" of a
> policy 
> when it is deleted would, I think, be a very bad idea.
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> At 10:18 AM 6/22/00 -0400, Jon Saperia wrote:
> >3. What happens when a policy is deleted? What if anything do you revert
> to?
> >
> >In the case of DIFFSERV, I do not see much of a problem since the traffic
> >that would have been treated will in systems I know about,  pass through
> the
> >system subject to the same 'rules' as the rest of the traffic. The
> problem
> >is for other types of policy. For example;  a policy that causes the
> >configuration of primary and secondary DNS servers. If the policy is
> >removed, the systems could be left without knowing where to send DNS
> >requests. I do not think we want to have the managed elements keep a
> scratch
> >pad either (though some may choose to do this for a number of reasons -
> and
> >we should not prohibit this).
> >
> >My suggestion is that we recommend in the BCP that policy managers that
> >delete a policy, replace it with a default if appropriate or the
> parameters
> >that existed prior to the installation of this policy. This will be a
> >difficult problem to solve.