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

Re: snmpconf General Functional Questions

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Jon Saperia wrote:

> on 06/19/2000 3:07 PM, Matt White at mwhite@torrentnet.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Jon Saperia wrote:
> > 
> >> PmRoleESEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
> >> pmRoleESElement        RowPointer,
> >> pmRoleESString         SnmpAdminString,
> >> pmRoleESStatus         RowStatus
> >> }
> >> 
> >> I propose that the pmRoleESStatus be the place for the dirty bit. If that is
> >> not acceptable, another object in this table.
> > 
> > While this would work, I think I would prefer to look at the precedence
> > issue first.  We may come up with a solution to that problem that lends
> > itself well to solving the manual configuration problem.  Or we may not,
> > but I'd at least like to see where that goes before we lock ourselves into
> > a solution to this problem.
> > 
> > 
> > -Matt
> > 
> > 
> Matt,
> can you clarify what you mean by the precedence issue please?
> Thanks
> /jon


Sorry for the delay, this folder was relatively low traffic so I thought I
could let it sit for a week while I worked on other things...silly me.  ;)

By "the precedence issue", I am referring to conflict resolution.  You
mentioned above the idea of associating a priority with a policy, which
IMHO is the right thing to do.  If we do go that route, we can look at
manual configuration on a box as an implicit policy, the "manual policy"
if you will.  The user can then assign whatever priority they want to
manual policy.  This provides the flexibility to say "policy foo and bar
do not override manual configuration, but policy baz takes precendence