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

Re: snmpconf Schedule Requirements



on 09/22/2000 7:02 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder at schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
wrote:

> 
>>>>>> 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
> Jon> rows.
> 
> Jon,
> 
> 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.
> 
Please do not interpret it that way at all. I was pointing to one of the
requirements that Hongal put forward. Specifically to a schedule that starts
at a specified time and runs for a fixed length of length of time.  Hongel
put forward others that are important as well.

I would like to be able to say start at a time and run for 90 mins. Or Under
condition A run for 1 hour.  I understand these are two different requests.

> Jon> I see this duration type schedule as having a start time and a
> Jon> duration. 
> 
> 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).
> 
In the types of schedule that I have described which are a subset of those
Hongal proposes, I do not need an end time since that is implicit in
duration.  My subset should not be interpreted as suggesting Hongals other
points are not important, only that I wanted to emphasize issues of
particular interest to me.


/jon
>