[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf To Do list items
For the history of this discussion, please see attached.
For the most part I agree with everything that David said except
exclusion of technology specific details in the PM. In the end every
policy is technology specific, even the RMON examples, so that is hard
to avoid. However:
On reflection, I think we may need a number of examples in a number of
documents. My view is that the goals should be:
1. For the Policy MIB Module:
A. How to write effective and concise policy scripts -
The script portion of what Hongal wrote would be
great. I do see the desire not to get to technology
(Domain-Specific) in that document so the inclusion of
the DiffServ script would be just one example. There
probably should be others. There are already some
examples that Steve has provided to show portions of
how the language works.
B. How the Policy Module can use MIB Modules like the
DiffServ Policy Module since that makes a significant
simplification in the policy script.
C. An example of a policy that manipulates
instance-specific MIB objects directly. There are
already some others would not hurt.
2. For the DiffServ Policy Module:
A. Basic examples and how the module is used with the
DiffServ Module. Hongals example does a great job of
B. Use of the DiffServ and DiffServ Policy Modules
without the benefit of the Policy Module. This can
show the flexibility of the system we have created.
C. Use of the PM and the DiffServ PM and the DiffServ
MIB in combination. Again Hongals piece does a good
D. Use of the DiffServ PM with Implementation specific
extensions such as the ones in Hongal's example. We
would also want to point out or to the instance
specific counterparts so people understand how all the
pieces work - this is a part of Hongals example that
might benefit from expansion.
3. In the BCP (the policy section) we can be a bit more broad
so we could have a wide variety of scripts and real or
imaginary MIB objects as examples. I see no reason to limit
the scope (other than time/cost benefit) of the examples in
A. We probably want to add one or two more simple examples to
the PM Document. It does not harm to use DiffServ as one of
them, though we probably should just focus on his since script
B. As much as possible of Hongals work with as much detail
should go in the DiffServ PM since that is the best exposition
on this work I have seen and is relevant to the DiffServ PM.
C. Other examples should go in the BCP as time permits.
> Jon wrote:
> > 1. I think it was Bert that raised the question about more
> > examples in the BCP. Is this correct? In either case we should probably
> > add one or two to the BCP for the policy section as examples of good
> > ways to use the system. I believe that Hongal can help with this.
> Bert replied:
> > When the discussion came up about a simple and a complex example,
> > Brian Carpenter suggested that the example presented by Hongal
> > was far more complex then real life ISPs would want to do. He suggested
> > a simple """data from customer A" gets special threatment is a more
> > simpler and realistic example. So I suggested to do that one, but also
> > keep the one that Hongal presented.
> Harrie wrote:
> > There is already an example in the diffserv-policy draft.
> > It does not have a full-blown scripting example as would be used
> > in the policy-mib module, but I attempted to keep it as simple
> > as possible.
> > Therefore, I start to wonder where do we want to put the example
> > of Hongal. I don't think it is the policy-mib draft and the
> > diffserv-policy draft already has an example.
> > one thing that was good with the example of Hongal was how to
> > use vendor extensions, but that is IMHO a diffserv-example.
> Jon responded:
> > How would it be if we put a number of examples in the BCP in
> > the section that deals with policy. We could use the script
> > as an example of how to write a concise script for a fairly
> > complicated system.
> > There are two a couple of other examples that should go in there
> > as well. We could reference the BCP in the other documents in
> > such a way that it is not a normative reference but something
> > people could look into if they wanted.
> Hongal wrote:
> > I do not see a strong reason not to include this example in
> > the policy document considering the fact that this example is
> > focused at
> > 1. An example policy description, rules and their equivalent
> > 'Filter' and 'Action' code segment.
> > 2. Action part shows how an vendor extension access function
> > can be used to clone the data path template.
> > 3. How we populate data in pmPolicyTable, pmRoleTable,
> > ElementTable tables.
> > 4. Of course I tried to visualize the cloning part with
> > tables, which is only for the purpose to support the example,
> > not to focus on theory of differentiated services.
> I believe that Hongal's example would be extremely useful
> and think that it should go in the diffserv policy MIB.
> I do not think that it should be in the PM module since I
> don't think we should have technology-specific examples there.
> It's rather diffserv-specific, and it's very like the example
> we already have in the diffserv policy MIB, so I'm not sure
> that the BCP is the right place either, but I really don't have
> a strong preference. Two examples is certainly a good thing.
> 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
> SE-581 12 Linköping, Sweden
Jon Saperia firstname.lastname@example.org