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

Re: snmpconf Setcli accessor function - suggested resolution



In case it is not obvious,
I like this approach.
Joel

At 05:35 PM 1/26/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Thanks to all who have participated in the setcli() discussion.
>Just to demonstrate the value of such discussions, I'm afraid
>that I have been swayed...
>
>The "ugly hack" is exactly that.  I have decided that I
>agree that it's not appropriate for standardization since
>it is inherently a vendor-specific thing.  There have been
>several strong opinions stated that seemed to push for this
>way of thinking.
>
>But we also have the reality that some vendors may need such a
>thing in the short term.
>
>My suggestion is that  rather than standardize even the name
>and a set of error codes (which was all that was suggested),
>we instead:
>
>  - recognize that vendors are going to do vendor-specific
>    extensions
>
>  - document the way that vendor-specific extensions are to be
>    done
>
>  - in the section describing this, outline one possible
>    vendor-specific extension that vendors COULD implement,
>    including the name and a small set of return codes
>
>This removes setcli() from any kind of standardization and
>puts the responsibility for the ugly hack squarely on the
>vendors's shoulders.
>
>With kind regards,
>
>--
>David Partain                  David.Partain@ericsson.com
>Ericsson Radio Systems AB      Tel:    +46 13 28 41 44
>Research and Innovation        Fax:    +46 13 28 75 67
>P.O. Box 1248                  http://linlab.ericsson.se/~epkpart
>SE-581 12  Linköping, Sweden