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

Re: snmpconf Proposed agenda for interim meeting



Greetings Jürgen and all the rest of you,

Thank you for your mail.

> >>>>> 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.

That wasn't what I was trying to do.  Let me see if I can
elaborate.

I believe that one argument for using the Script MIB might be
that it already has an installed base amongst the vendors that
are implementing/considering implementing the SNMPCONF work.
The existence or lack thereof of implementations is therefore
interesting - although by no means critical.  Hence the
first bullet.

A second reason for using the Script MIB is the claim that
they match SNMPCONF needs semantically.  Hence bullet number 2.

The third and fourth bullet are asking a valid question
(really the same one), in my view:  do we want to use the
general tool of the Script MIB or do we want to use a tool
created specifically for the task.

So, while you interpret this as biased, we're genuinely trying
to determine what the right course is for the working group.
The agenda items represent the current work thus far and
the draft that's been published.  We don't think there has
been consensus on the mailing list for your counter-proposal
to the current approach. Until we determine a consensus to
do otherwise, we will continue to work on configuration and
policy-based management based on the Policy Module and the
elements it contains.

> 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.

Is there anyone going to the interim that you would be willing
to entrust with communicating your viewpoint?

> FYI: We decided to work on a policy runtime system which is based on
> existing implemented MIBs.

That's very interesting.  Perhaps you could tell us who "we"
is?  Are you interested in external input to what you are
doing?  I must admit, though, that I would prefer that efforts
be concentrated on implementing what the IETF working group is
doing, regardless of whether you agree with the concensus of
the working group or not.

> 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.

It is sometimes the case that people will disagree, as is
apparently the case here. Thanks for your contributions, we
hope you will continue to contribute even if you believe the
working group is wrong about something.

Cheers,

David (and Jon)