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

Re: snmpconf pm issue #23 - policy termination



I am happy with the text. I appreciate the concerns about security but not all 
policies will have trumped a lower precedence policy. I am concerned that we 
could over-engineer this.

/jon
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> --On Monday, June 04, 2001 9:18 AM -0700 Steve Waldbusser 
> <waldbusser@nextbeacon.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >   Issue: Jon writes: "There have been extensive discussions about
> >   what to happen when a policy terminates. My recollection -
> >   with help from David - is that if one wants a policy reset
> >   after termination, a lower precedence policy should be in
> >   the group that will take over. I have no issue with this as
> >   the resolution, only that we need to document that this is
> >   how this behavior is achieved."
> >
> >
> > How's this text?
> >
> > "Note that if it is necessary to take certain actions after a policy is
> > no longer active on an element, these actions should be included in a
> > lower-precedence policy that is in the same policy group."
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/