[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf taxonomy discussion(s) - suggested resolution
If the taxonomy is removed, the resulting document, is not a BCP and
needs much work. I work closely
with one of the co-authors (Mike MacFaden) and have pointed out to him
many problem areas. He agrees that there are problems. He is vacationing
this week and should be back on Monday. We can discuss an action plan
when he returns.
On the SNMP Policy issue, I've been reading all that I can about policy.
(It's not too entertaining (sorry Bob Moore, Andrea, etc), so it is taking
a long time to get through.) I believe that it is very important to
take the existing documents and provide an SNMP-based interpretation
of them. For example, just yesterday the ID
"draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-05.txt" was announced. It
and the other policy documents are based on an "LDAP-view" of
specifying policy for QoS. However, an SNMP-based interpretation
and translation can be easily made of this document and others
(of course it would take some time because the document
is 80+ pages long, and the others are also big documents).
The documents to be recast in an SNMP-based approach include:
RFC 3060 - Policy Core Information Model
ID "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-02.txt" - Policy Core
Information Model Extensions
ID "draft-ietf-policy-terminology-04.txt" - Policy Terminology
ID "draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-03.txt" - Policy Framework
QoS Information Model
ID "draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-05.txt" - Information
Model for Describing network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms
and maybe some others...
/david t. perkins
At 05:08 PM 8/17/2001 +0200, David Partain wrote:
>Over the last few months, there has been long discussions
>about two particular issues: the taxonomy discussion in the
>BCP and the pointer to it in the policy MIB document. A few
>things have become plain to me during this discussion:
> - I suspect that there is a very small number of people who
> understand what the taxonomy issue is all about.
> - The "camps" (for lack of a better term) are not any closer to
> reaching agreement on the taxonomy now than they were at the
> beginning of the discussion.
> - No one else is about to jump into the middle.
> - There is significant work being put into something which is,
> in the end, and example of how to talk about policy. As such
> I am having a difficult time seeing that it warrants this
> level of attention or contention.
>As I think this is true, I would strongly recommend that we:
> - Remove the taxonomy section from the BCP entirely.
> - Remove references to the BCP taxonomy section in the PM
>This will enable us to move the BCP forward by removing the
>single most contentious issue as well as close some PM issues
>that remain. And, I believe, we don't really lose anything
>other than an example.
>I strongly believe we are spinning our wheels on this issue
>and want to move on.
>I know that Jon agrees with this suggestion and would very
>much like the working group's opinion.
/david t. perkins