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

Re: snmpconf well, back to work


> I believe that the split between a filter script and an action script
> is not useful. In fact, this level of granularity will just turn out
> to be very impractical if you express real-world policies. I actually
> believe that the unit of concern should be a set of logically related
> policy rules. (This probably maps to the concept of a PolicyGroup in
> PCIM.)

I do not understand your concern. I think the split is very useful,
because from it nature filters and actions are different things and have
different properties. Why are they impractical?

> While reading the minutes form the Friday meeting, I got the feeling
> that RFC 2592 actually provides answers for quite a few of the issues
> discussed in Pittsburgh such as identifying language versions,
> language extensions, handling and reporting of syntactic errors,
> handling and reporting of execution errors, etc. I recommend that this
> WG leverages existing work and focuses the resources that are
> available on the new stuff that is in front of us and that the WG
> reconsiders the granularity needed to distribute policies to
> policy-enabled managed devices.

I aggree with Juergen, that many Problems discussed in Pittsburgh can be
solved using RFC 2592. Are there reasons not to use RFC 2592?


Dr. Marcus Brunner
C&C Research Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~brunner

Adenauerplatz 6
D-69115 Heidelberg

Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129
Fax:   +49 (0)6221/ 9051155