[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: WG last call on draft-ietf-snmpconf-bcp-06.txt
At 05:47 PM 9/6/2001 -0400, John Schnizlein wrote:
>How can the "new SNMPCONF technology" be the subject of "best practice"
>without distorting the very idea that technology has been already found
>effective in practice?
In principle, I agree with you. This document should stand alone of the
other snmpconf work. As you note elswhere in your posting, the doesn't
mean that policy-based configuration overall is inappropriate to discuss.
So let's see, there are three references to snmpconf in the document.
One is in sec. 3.3.5, and as I look at it now, does look a bit out of place
here. The idea is that clever deployment of certain systems employing
policy-based abstractions have a definite upside of reducing data transfer
overhead, where the abstraction processing can be done on the agent. But,
this isn't just pertinent to SNMPCONF pm (of which this is true), but any
policy agent or mlm inbound along the management path of concern.
I'd definitely be game for changing this section to reflect this more
generic sense, and remove any direct reference to snmpconf here.
Another mention is at the beginning of section 7. That's really mostly an
oversight given how this section was reformatted. I'm very game for
shooting that penultimate sentence of section 7.
Last is the final sentence of section 7.1. It clearly defines snmpconf as
a latest-example of a system supporting policy abstraction directly using
SNMP, and the bibliographic reference is to a work-in-progress. I'd vote
that this isn't dictating anything or outlining a highly current practice,
but merely being illustrative as to new developments in the practice, and
hence, is appropriately framed for your concerns.
Let me know if with these mods, the essence of your concern is
addressed. You had two other significant concerns, which I think Jon
addressed (feel free to repost if you have concerns that what he pointed
out needs amplification). Thanks for your time and attention in looking at