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

Re: snmpconf Proposed agenda for interim meeting

>>>>> David Partain writes:

David>   Script MIB discussion (Partain/Waldbusser)

David>     * show me the commercial implementations in boxes * are the
David> semantic differences important and valid * it's a general tool
David> but we may want a specific tool * is it too much of a good
David> thing

The * items sound like (a biased) list of answers rather than an
agenda item. I am not able to be at the interim, but I guess I already
disagree with the outcome. ;-) Seriously: I think you still do not
really understand my critique. I believe that you are trying to model
internals of a policy interpreter as granular MIB objects. And I
believe this approach is flawed.

FYI: We decided to work on a policy runtime system which is based on
existing implemented MIBs. So if we continue to disagree about the
general approach, then we can just see who comes up with a working
solution plus implementation first.


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/>