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

RE: snmpconf BCP document

My 2c:

I don't think it premature to do a BCP on "policy-based management using the
standards'-track SNMP tools/MIBs that IETF has so far produced". There's
nothing magic about the "P" word - the work of snmpconf WG is evolutionary,
not revolutionary: in my mind it is perfectly possible, if suboptimal, to do
"policy" with current tools/MIBs. The WG is working on some better tools and
mechanisms which, themselves, will need their own BCP later on but it would
be a big service to have a somewhat official-looking document describing the
state of the art right now.

Having said that, if it is really true that the document describes
"requirements", then it ought to be a standards'-track document, not the
traditional informational status of BCPs. Which are we aiming for here? [I
guess I'll have to now read the document in more detail to figure out what
new "requirements" are being placed on implementations].


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-snmpconf@snmp.com [mailto:owner-snmpconf@snmp.com]On Behalf
Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 8:35 AM
To: snmpconf@snmp.com
Subject: RE: snmpconf BCP document

I have many hadnscribble notes on the document which I
will hand to the authors/editors.

What bothers me most is that it seems premature to do BCP
on policy-based management. Maybe we should try a
BCP for the existing SNMP practices and a separate
guidelines  informational doc with sample MIB for policy
based management. At some later date, when we indeed
have more experience and some current practices,
maybe then we can clean that up and make it a BCP

But I must say that it also bothers me that various erros
and deficiencies in existing MIBs are spelled out and
I find it hard to see what the recommended best practices
are to prevent that in the future.

In the meantime I have also gone through the sample MIB
and have also there lots of comments scribbled in the
document. And I think we would need to add text that
describes how you can define some policies and a
sample set of filters and then show how that then gets


> ----------
> From: 	Jeff Case[SMTP:case@snmp.com]
> Reply To: 	snmpconf@snmp.com
> Sent: 	Sunday, March 18, 2001 9:29 AM
> To: 	snmpconf@snmp.com
> Subject: 	RE: snmpconf BCP document
> bert>I did go through this document and it seems to me
> bert>that it is not really just a BCP, but rather a mix of:
> bert>
> bert>- BCP
> bert>- Requirements
> bert>- Guidance
> bert>
> bert>Specifically BCP stands for best CURRENT practice.
> bert>So I wonder how the policy-based NM can already be
> bert>current practice.
> hi bert, et. al.,
> i agree ... you are right that the document is a mix
> which is bothering you more,
> 	that it is a mixture, as many bcp documents are, or
> 	your second point regarding the dimension of current versus new?
> is there a particular action or solution that you have in mind?
> see you soon
> best regards,
> jdc