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

Re: snmpconf well, back to work



on 09/13/2000 3:26 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder at schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
wrote:

> 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
> status?

What I mean is the state of the policy. For example you will have seen
postings leading up to the last IETF where a policy can be overridden by the
CLI for example or a policy can be superseded by another. Thus the answer to
your question above is policy as an entry in the Policy Table and policy in
the tables you reference below.  To the best of what I know, the SNMPCONF
work has not yet explicitly used the term 'condition'.
> 
> 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

Your term, policy condition here is not clear to me. Additionally we do
width to have the state information visible via MIB Objects as described
above.

> introduce new tables to provide additional interfaces, I still believe

Not sure which WG you mean here?
> that working from existing MIBs which have been specified and
> implemented is worth to be seriously considered.

I agree when there is a good fit like I think there is in the Schedule MIB
Module. I do not think the script mib as anywhere near as good a fit.

/jon