[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf Comments on the BCP
I'll have more questions for you later to help clarify for me the correct
amount of new content to address some of your points, but I want to make
one note right now, perhaps if nothing else to ease your mind we're
thinking the same way on this :). You have a recurring concern that the
BCP is in its current form too linked to the PM MIB and architecture, and
as we've reflected on this, we think you're correct.
The position that I personally am striving for on this is that there
certainly shouldn't be any direct linkage. The notion that "policy" as a
means of specifying defaults for the application to a potentially broad
number of instances, seems to me to be general enough to warrant discussion
on as a design consideration for MIBs and management applications. This
shouldn't *imply* PM, and I think we've currently (in the draft we're
working on) whittled the mention of PM to two simple mentions as an example
of an end-to-end architecture reflecting this principle (along with a
mention of PM as being a work-in-progress as of this writing). The HVAC
MIB should simply reflect this, without any particular applicability for
PM. Point being "policy" should not imply PM at all necessarily.
Now, clearly, we need to look at the HVAC MIB some more to make sure it
reflects this. And, I could come up with a number of more specific points
to clarify my arguments that this broader notion of policy applicability is
compelling. However, as stated here, does this sound like a reasonable
position to you to be putting forth in the BCP?
Thanks for your comments and attention to the draft!