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

Re: snmpconf draft-bakker-jain-scml-00.txt

Hi -

> Message-Id: <200111191347.IAA10237@europa-h0001027441c5.ne.mediaone.net>
> To: snmpconf@snmp.com
> Subject: Re: snmpconf draft-bakker-jain-scml-00.txt 
> From: Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>
> In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:34:28 -0800.
>              <200111170034.QAA16429@dorothy.bmc.com> 
> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:47:36 -0500
> I was unaware of this until your post. I spent a very short time with it
> and it seems like it is not as directed at the managed devices as is the
> case with the Policy Module. Have I got this wrong? It is clear though
> that there are some concepts that are the same such as
> capabilities. 

I'm not too sure how to read "directed at the managed devices".
In the case of snmpconf, it seems almost tautological, since if
it's not a managed device, we really can't do too much with it.

I think both documents leave quite a bit of freedom as to
whether the entity executing the policy specification will
be the one whose configuration is consequently modified.

A few points where I think this I-D is on the right track:

   1) explicitly leaving open the possibility of both compiled
      and interpreted script execution, rather than requiring

   2) its decision to use off-the shelf language(s), rather than
      a new one or changing the semantics of an existing one.

   3) compartmentalizing the special-purpose library additions
      to support this application.

But I didn't want to get into a lengthy discussion of the
details of this I-D; that would be better done with someone
knowledgeable.  It looked like something that should be of
some interest to this WG, so I posted a note.

 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San Josť, California 95131  USA
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.