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

Re: snmpconf well, back to work

>>>>> Jon Saperia writes:

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

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

Not sure I understand what you are talking about here. Are you talking
about policy groups, policy rules, policy conditions and actions when
you use the term policy? And what does it mean to overwrite the

You are probably refering to pmTrackingPolicyToElementStatus and
pmTrackingElementToPolicyStatus (since these are the only status
objects I could find that are not RowStatus). In this case, you talk
about the binding of policy conditions to the set of elements (or
targets). I believe this can be handled appropriately in a pure
language based approach as well. And even if this WG needs to
introduce new tables to provide additional interfaces, I still believe
that working from existing MIBs which have been specified and
implemented is worth to be seriously considered.


Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>