[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf pm issue #23 - policy termination
On Monday, June 11 2001, David Partain <David.Partain@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Steve Waldbusser wrote, after discussion with others on
> the list:
> > I totally agree with you guys that this is necessary. You can already
> > see this behavior described somewhat, it's just not complete yet.
> > The following text is in the defer() function:
> > "When a policy defers it exits and the filter-matching policy with the
> > next-highest precedence is immediately run."
> > Similar text needs to be added to the policy table logic as well.
> > This isn't expensive either. We're just changing the timing a bit. We're
> > just re-evaluating the "previously trumped" policy filters immediately
> > rather than waiting till the next policyFilterMaxLatency time.
> So, if such text is added in the "policy table logic", would
> folks be happy? I would be.
This resolves the implementation ambiguity that concerned me.
Steve Moulton SNMP Research, Inc voice: +1 865 573 1434
Sr Software Engineer 3001 Kimberlin Heights Rd. fax: +1 865 573 9197
firstname.lastname@example.org Knoxville, TN 37920-9716 USA http://www.snmp.com