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

Re: snmpconf BCP re: policy layering



At 05:51 PM 6/21/2001 -0700, Steve Waldbusser wrote:

>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.

It seems to me like an inevitable continuity of the hierarchical 
distinctions afforded by the abstraction.  To me, at some level, there has 
to be a placeholder for policy distinctions which are brought about by the 
nature of *specific* deployment by a customer, as opposed to those based on 
the nature of the product offering (implementation), selected technology or 
chosen RFC wxyz approach (mechanism), and generalized area of network 
service focus (domain).  Without the notion of "instance specific" policy 
design considerations, the model feels profoundly incomplete at its lowest 
layer.



>A side note: Is this intended as a learning tool? An architecture for
>policy? *The* architecture?

To be honest, I struggled with that for awhile in my initial reaction to 
the BCP.  Going forward, in the way I've discussed the most basic realistic 
points of how to organize and deploy policy-based configuration (both 
within SNMPConf's technologies and outside), without some sort of reference 
model like this, I've found one cannot engage in meaningful 
conversation.  There is is, a *reference model*, without any of the more 
specific constructs or object models (and avoiding conflict with same) as 
offered by the likes of DEN and the DMTF.

Regards,
Wayne