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

Re: snmpconf well, back to work

on 09/12/2000 12:22 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder at schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

>>>>>> Steve Waldbusser writes:
> Steve> The rest is simply Modeling 101:
> Steve> We define different concepts as different objects. Then we
> Steve> structure them to show the appropriate relationships between
> Steve> the concepts/objects.  We shouldn't encode filter and action
> Steve> into the same object for the same reason that we shouldn't
> Steve> encode policyStatus as a decimal number at the end of the
> Steve> policyAction string. We outlawed OPAQUE syntax years ago
> Steve> because of similar bad modeling practices it was abused for.
> This is where we obviously have some disagreement. I think we are
> talking in the policy management context about high-level control
> programs that we want to distribute, invoke and execute. We are not
> talking about fine grained little objects for network element
> monitoring. The modeling practices for network element monitoring
> simply do not fit the requirements for high-level network control
> programming.

>From my perspective, as an editor, not co-chair, I think there are important
differences in the semantics of the specific objects in the policy document.
I think this is what Steve was pointing out.

The status of a policy is not the status of what shows in the script mib
which talks about execution status. The status of a policy is semantically
much more complex and is not appropriately conveyed in the script mib
objects. The status of a policy could be overridden for example.