[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



Wayne,

Yes, fixing 3.3.5 and the beginning of 7., 
but leaving the example in 7.1 would work.

I have not seen Jon's response to the other concerns. 
Would you please forward that message?

John

At 03:52 PM 9/10/2001, Wayne F. Tackabury wrote:

>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...
>
>One is in sec. 3.3.5, and as I look at it now, does look a bit out of place here.  ...
>
>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 the document.