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

Re: snmpconf Issue #18 resolution - Update capabilities table



In your description Dave, you state that the management app should "probe 
the capabilities of the individual device.  Given taht what we are trying 
to do is provide a means my which a common set of configuration can be 
defined by the administrator, and applied across a number of devices, there 
is no way that the application can "know" much about what capabilities are 
required unless the language / libraries / objects tell it so.  What we are 
trying to define are the hooks that make it likely that the policy will be 
applicable / useful.  We recognize that you can not define fine enough 
grained capabilities in a general fashion.  Instead we are trying to 
provide coarse grained information that will help the management system 
determine whether a given configuration policy is likely to be useful to 
send to a given system.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 11:24 AM 4/20/01 -0700, David T. Perkins wrote:
>David,
>
>I haven't read Jon's update message after speaking with him on
>the phone. The talk troubled me greatly due to my perception
>of Jon's lack of knowledge about MODULE-COMPLIANCEs and AGENT-CAPs.
>I believe that it is bad for the SNMP community to use
>MODULE-COMPLIANCEs to specify capabilities. Whatever small gain
>that would help SNMPCONF, is offset by the damage that it can
>and I believe will do the SNMP community.
>
>Additionally, I have a major problem with trying to use some
>sort of capabilities specification that an agent provides
>to assist an unknown manager. I believe that EVERY management
>application must have either a separate program or a component
>within it to probe an agent to determine if it has the
>capabilities that are needed to support its requirements.
>Only the management app knows its requirements. Only after
>a management app is written and the requirements specified,
>can an agent developer determine if it meets the requirements.
>It is "just silly" for an agent to advertise capabilities
>for future and of course unknown management apps and HOPE
>that the capabilities specification is complete and precise
>enough to allow a management app to determine if it can
>interoperate with an agent without probing the agent.
>Once you need to probe an agent, when why bother with
>checking for a capabilities specification.
>
>Regards,
>/david t. perkins
>At 06:37 PM 4/20/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> >Greetings,
> >
> >See http://www.snmp.com/snmpconf/mailing-list/msg00726.html for
> >the most recent thread on this topic.
> >
> >There has been much discussion on the capabilities table.
> >It is my reading of the working group that we have reached
> >a consensus that we would define the table as we decided
> >in Minneapolis (as described on the todo list - see #18 on
> >http://www.cs.utk.edu/~partain/snmpconf/todo.html) and as sent
> >to this mailing list by Jon on 16 Apr 2001.
> >
> >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