[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf Schedule Requirements
>>>>> Jon Saperia writes:
Jon> Juergen, I do not want to speak for Hongal, but on reading your
Jon> reply, I too was wondering if we may have ended up with too many
I am currently just trying to understand what the additional
requirements boil down. I just wanted to figure out what Hongal was
asking for, whether it is doable with the current RFC 2591 and what
the implications are.
Jon> Without limiting Hongal's other proposal points I would like to
Jon> see if we can do a simple duration schedule in one row.
So your requirements seem to be less than Hongal's requirements.
Jon> I see this duration type schedule as having a start time and a
Jon> It would have a schedType of duration and a new object, duration
Jon> would indicate how long the policy was to be in effect.
I think you also need to have another value which you set on the end
of the time interval, right? We probably also need to document the
behaviour in some corner cases (e.g. the start time triggers again
before the previous start time trigger + duration, or the behaviour
in case of time transitions).
Jon> Without changing the flexibility of the other items proposed, can
Jon> we have this simple case?
The DISMAN WG has to make this decision. So please post your thoughts
on this proposed RFC 2591 extension. Personally, I am especially
interested in the opinion of people who have already implemented RFC
Randy, does it make sense to put out a deadline for people to raise
their views so that we actually get to a decision in the near future?
Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig
<email@example.com> 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/>