[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf BCP re: policy layering
> Your side note is a very profound set of questions.
> It brings to mind the AD's question of whether the O-O theory and
> Policy networking concepts are sufficiently widely practiced to
> warrant the designation "Best Current Practice".
John, you will note that the BCP makes no mention of OO theory, simple
layering yes. My OO comments were in explanatory email. The context is what I
said and is Steve's first item in the side note. The taxonomy was created to
help people understand some general principals for doing this work with SNMP -
a learning tool for application of the technology, consistent with other BCPs.
The reference language recently posted that is to be incorporated into the
policy module underscores that this is a useful set of terms. It is how I
would go about building a system to do these functions, if I were using MIB
> At 08:51 PM 6/21/2001, Steve Waldbusser wrote:
> >> help the general community see a simple hierarchy.
> >Yes, I see your motivation behind a simple hierarchy. And I *do* think
> >that a hierarchical relationship exists between the implementation,
> >mechanism, domain and service-level abstraction layers. I just don't
> >think that the concept of instance-independence fits into that
> >hierarchical relationship.
> >A side note: Is this intended as a learning tool?
> >An architecture for policy?
> >*The* architecture?
Jon Saperia email@example.com