[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf Status of our work
Hi David and Wes,
On Thursday 23 October 2003 18.03, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:10:11 -0400, "Harrington, David"
> >>>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> David> To suggest that this suggestion is "late in the process" is a bit
> David> misleading. I have been requesting the split of the snmpconf
> David> functionality for approximately three years, so we could reuse existing
> David> mib module functionality where possible, especially in terms of
> David> scripting support, and so that other working groups could more easily
> David> reuse some of the work being done in snmpconf.
> As have I. I also made comments a long time ago that the MIB should
> have other-language support (specifically, I think I mentioned that it
> was unlikely the language would come out perfect the first time and
> that a completely new language might be needed in the future, without
> deleting support the old at the same time).
> So, I have to agree with David
There are _too_ many Davids :-)
> that "late in the process" is a bit
> misleading. Though, the WG did make the decision a long time ago to
> not follow these opinions, and David
But a _different_ David this time. :-)
> is just restating old advise. It
> doesn't make it more likely it'll be followed at this point though...
I was going to respond to David H. earlier but travel got in
You are both correct that David H. has brought this up
before. I realized that I had misspoke previously. Whoops!
My apologies for failing to remember.
David has certainly stated his opinion about a split before.
Wes is also correct that the WG has previously decided at that
time not to do so.