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

snmpconf Re: SNMPCONF WG Notice: Policy Terminology Draft, Extended WG Last Call (fwd)



Joel sent my posting back to me the other day with the suggestion that I
reforward it to the Policy WG and that I add as much specific lanaguage
as possible.

At 06:21 PM 5/14/01 -0400, Jon Saperia wrote:
>Ed,
>
>Thanks for the additional poke. I have commented on previous versions of
>this document. One of my original concerns still stands in that the
>document often references the COPS protocols and not SNMP in the context
>of Policy information. Specifics:
>
>    1. There is no reference to SNMPCONF.:

From page 3:

       - "T" identifies various techniques to create or convey 
         policy-related information in a network.  For example, 
         COPS and an "Information Model" are two techniques for 
         communicating and describing policy-related data. 


Replace with:

       - "T" identifies various techniques to create or convey
       policy-related information in a network.  For example, COPS and
       an "Information Model" are two techniques for communicating and
       describing policy-related data. SNMP and MIBs are another.
.
>
>    2. There is an incorrect impression left by the definition of PIB and
>    MIB that MIBs do not/can not carry policy information.  In fact the
>    definition of a MIB points back to a PIB.
>
>An additional comment:
>
>    Policy Translation - This mixes access methods (such as CLI) with
>    level of abstraction. If you want to call translation the thing you
>    do when moving from one access method to another great. There is way
>    too much in the current policy translation definition to be helpful I
>    do not agree with the use of 'blurring' in this definition.


SNMP and SNMPCONF should be added to the terminology section.


>
>Thanks
>/jon
>
>
>
>
> > SNMPCONF WG:
> >
> > Our AD has asked us to inform your WG that this WG Last Call is
> > going on in the Policy Framework WG. This is to give you a
> > chance for review and comments, because the terminology is also
> > meant to be used by your WG.
> >
> > Extended WG Last Call:
> >
> > This last call is hereby extended to end at CoB on Fri, May 18, 2001.
> >
> > The latest revision of the Terminology Draft is in the I-D
> > repository.
> >
> > for your reference:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-terminology-03.txt
> >
> >
> > Please also note that the title is changing to be more
> > descriptive:
> >
> >       Terminology for Policy-Based Management
> >
> > This revision reflects all known issues and comments.
> > This note extends the current working group last call,
> > to two weeks from today, and is intended to bring
> > forth any last issues.  After such issues are resolved according
> > to the working group consensus, we will be submitting
> > this document to the IESG for publication as an informational RFC.
> >
> >
> > We are also strongly suggesting that the comments/discussion be done to/on
> > the
> > policy fw wg mailing list... so that we have one archive to check later if
> > needed.
> >
> > If you are not already subscribed to the policy framework mailing list:
> > General Discussion: policy@raleigh.ibm.com
> > To Subscribe: policy-request@raleigh.ibm.com
> > In Body: subscribe
> > Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/policy
> > Thank you, and we apologize if you receive more than one notice like this.
> >
> > Ed Ellesson,
> > with Joel Halpern
> >
> > Co-chairs, Policy Framework Working Group
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>Thanks,
>/jon
>--
>
>Jon Saperia                  saperia@jdscons.com
>                              Phone: 617-744-1079
>                              Fax:   617-249-0874
>                              http://www.jdscons.com/



------- End of Forwarded Message