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

RE: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues - Consensu



Agree. See commentsinline

> ----------
> From: 	Jon Saperia[SMTP:saperia@mediaone.net]
> Reply To: 	snmpconf@snmp.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, June 28, 2000 7:10 PM
> To: 	snmpconf@snmp.com
> Subject: 	Re: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues - Consensu
> 
> on 06/24/2000 6:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern at joel@mcquillan.com wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> Folks, I believe that we have consensus on this topic even though my
> original postings may not have been clear.
> 
> The consensus is that we should not attempt to deal with this in the
> managed
> systems at all for all the previously stated reasons.  I agree. If a
> manager
> wants to do something fancy when deleting a policy that is outside the
> scope
> of the current work.
> 
> All agreed?
> 
So this means that if a policy gets deleted from the table, then no action
is taken, i.e. no config changes take place because of that action.
If my understanding is correct, then we should explicitly state so in the
DESCRIPTION clause of the table.

Bert