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

Re: snmpconf Comments on the BCP



Andy, just so you know, my thoughts are consistent with what Wayne has
below.  We have been working on the BCP edits as they came in over the
past month and will continue according to the plan. One point about
Waynes comments on policy. Routers we all know about support this
feature today via a cli to some degree. That is they have 'defaults'
that can be applied to many instances - but you know that.

/jon

> 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
> 
> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/