[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: snmpconf Status of our work
I continue to believe that the scripting language used to specify policies should be separated from the MIBs that coordinate the advertisement and coordination of policies.
In the MIDCOM WG, we could use many of the features described in snmpconf, such as advertised capabilities, policy groups, precedence, override, etc. Convincing the WG to adopt those features is made much harder by the requirement to be non-conformant to the only defined compliance, which requires support for the snmpconf scripting language.
It might be possible to simply add lesser compliance levels, but the dependencies on the scripting language in the design of the mib probably need to be reduced to enable easier reuse of the non-scripting portions of the design possible.
As the representative for a vendor, I can say that I will not go to my engineering department and recommend this protocol because I don't believe the snmpconf scripting is something I believe will solve more problems than it raises. I do not believe a freeform scripted language approach is application friendly; it strikes me about as application-friendly as HTML web pages that manipulate SNMP objects.
I hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater however. I believe the snmpconf work contains many mib constructs that could be useful if it weren't for the required scripting. If we made these useable with other policy-specification approaches, they could be very useful.
I believe the snmpconf-pm document should be broken up into at least two documents. That would allow vendors and other WGs to adopt some aspects of snmpconf without adopting it all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Partain (LI/EAB) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:27 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: snmpconf Status of our work
> Greetings all,
> The two final SNMPCONF documents have been published, with
> appropriate changelogs published here.
> draft-ietf-snmpconf-diffpolicy-08.txt: There is an ongoing
> IETF last call on this document.
> draft-ietf-snmpconf-pm-14.txt: Published following AD review.
> We believe that this revision covered the remaining outstanding
> issues, but there it may be that Patrik Fältström will have
> additional comments about internationalization.
> If you have comments about these documents, please speak up
> quickly. Now is the right time...
> David and Jon