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

Re: snmpconf 11. Setcli accessor function - Item to be resolved on email list



I must be missing something.   I do not understand the value of our 
standardizing "the name of the function and the minimum error 
behavior".  Given that the parameters will be different for different 
systems, having the name the same actually seems almost 
counter-productive.  It certainly does not seem like something we should be 
puttting time and energy into at this point in the process.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 10:35 AM 1/16/01 -0500, Jeff Case wrote:

>jon:
>
>i was not able to be a part of the discussions in the minutes
>
>i think that there is some standardization that can be done on this, but
>only a limited amount ... the stuff "under" the setcli accessor function
>will almost certainly be platform-dependent and implementation dependent,
>i.e., what strings can be poked into the cli are not subject to our
>standardization at this time
>
>however, we should be able to standardize the name of such a function and
>the minimum error behavior that it exhibits and i think we should try to
>do so at this time
>
>regarding your concern 3, below, i suggest that if discussion reveals that
>others share your concerns, then we can handle them through appropriately
>worded compliance statements
>
>i think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks and we should give this a try
>
>regards,
>jdc
>
>--------
>
> >A review of the minutes shows a conversation about the benefits and
> >drawbacks of introducing a setcli accessor function. On thinking about
> >it more, I suggest that we may want to omit it for now because of:
> >
> >   1. One more item to work on in the document
> >   2. Could be complex from a security perspective
> >   3. May delay rather than help adoption of the technology we are
> >working on.
> >
> >I do not feel very strongly about this, but thought I would put this out
> >to get the ball rolling to see if there are any strongly held views.