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

Re: snmpconf Issue #18 resolution - Update capabilities table



Hi,

I am concerned that the resulting text is not what was specified on the
todo list.

The pmCapabilitiesType seems to have been greatly expanded from what is
mentioned in the todo list.
The purpose of the IETF is to provide standardized solutions. The
wide-open nature of this object seems to work against standardization.
The ability to define any OID without it being a module identity or a
compliance OID means that vendors can use OIDs that are proprietary
"codes" for their own applications to recognize, promoting the use of
"hidden" capabilities. This does not work toward interoperability and
industry standardization. 

According to the todo list, the pmCapabilitiesOverrideTable would
contain two objects - one which could be set to valid or invalid, and a
rowstatus object.
The text proposed has additional functionality beyond a valid/invalid
switch and a rowstatus.

I am particularly concerned about a manager being allowed to override
the agent by asserting that a capability is present even though the
agent says it is not. There is no way for a manager to better understand
the agent implementation than the agent itself. This smacks of creeping
featurism.

I am concerned about the multiple manager problem and the override
table. Should one manager be able to override the capabilities table,
thus affecting all managers? or should this be on a manager-by-manager
basis via the use of ownerstrings or something? The capabilities table
advertises what the agent believes are its capabilities, and they are
consistent for all managers. The capabilitiesoverride table is one
managers' opinion about the capabilities of the agent, and should not
necessarily be applied to all managers. I think the design specified in
the todo list had a simple task to accomplish. The text has extended the
design in ways that make the reliability of this table questionable.

So when you're calculating consensus, count me as not supporting the
proposed text as the correct expression of the todo list agreements.

dharrington

David Partain 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

-- 
---
David Harrington            Network Management Standards Architect
dbh@enterasys.com           Office of the CTO
+1 603 337 2614 - voice     Enterasys Networks
+1 603 332 1524 - fax       Rochester NH, USA