[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Review of draft-ietf-snmpconf-bcp-07
You have made some useful points:
At 04:17 PM 1/14/2002, Michael MacFaden wrote:
>You just have admire this quote from Tony Li:
> Be liberal in what you accept, conservative in what you send, and add a
> knob so that you can interoperate even if the other guy blows it.
>That kind of tweaking...of course it isn't a BCP.
I do admire Tony's attitude and style. When I was operating a network
I once had occasion for him to tell me "Just because we give you enough
rope to hang yourself, doesn't mean we want you to."
>>The existence of a (small fraction) of R/W MIB variables is
>>not a very compelling argument for the "best practice" claim.
>>Can you name the operator of a network who would say that they
>>configure their network through SNMP?
>Strangely, they may or may not know they use SNMP.
Maybe the correct summary is that operators who do not know
what protocol they use to configure their networks use SNMP.
>Customers will to me things like, I use Lucent NavisCore
>or some other marketing term for an EMS product
>and that is how they want to configure their network.
The most important word in the immediately above is "want".
But wanting to use SNMP for configuration is not the same as
practicing the use of SNMP for configuration.
>If you define/use SNMP read-write objects and implement the
>Internet Standard Management Framework, the BCP attempts to
>show how things have progressed in the past ten years or so
>and what works and what to watch out for and to some extent,
>what the current 'thinking' is.
This appears to be an accurate description of the document.
It is the current 'thinking' of those who advocate the SNMP framework.
The practical point of Best Current Practice is that it requires
people actually doing something well at present, not wanting to in