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

Re: snmpconf Comments on the BCP



Hi Andy...

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!

Regards,
Wayne