RE: snmpconf Status of our work

Hi,

I continue to believe that the scripting language used to specify policie=
s should be separated from the MIBs that coordinate the advertisement and=
 coordination of policies.=20

In the MIDCOM WG, we could use many of the features described in snmpconf=
, such as advertised capabilities, policy groups, precedence, override, e=
tc. Convincing the WG to adopt those features is made much harder by the =
requirement to be non-conformant to the only defined compliance, which re=
quires support for the snmpconf scripting language.=20

It might be possible to simply add lesser compliance levels, but the depe=
ndencies 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 t=
he design possible.

As the representative for a vendor, I can say that I will not go to my en=
gineering department and recommend this protocol because I don't believe =
the snmpconf scripting is something I believe will solve more problems th=
an it raises. I do not believe a freeform scripted language approach is a=
pplication friendly; it strikes me about as application-friendly as HTML =
web pages that manipulate SNMP objects.=20

I hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater however. I believe the sn=
mpconf 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 o=
f snmpconf without adopting it all.=20

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Partain (LI/EAB) [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 8:27 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: snmpconf Status of our work
>
>=20
> Greetings all,
>=20
> The two final SNMPCONF documents have been published, with
> appropriate changelogs published here.
>=20
> draft-ietf-snmpconf-diffpolicy-08.txt: There is an ongoing
> IETF last call on this document.
>=20
> 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 F=E4ltstr=F6m will have
> additional comments about internationalization.
>=20
> If you have comments about these documents, please speak up
> quickly.  Now is the right time...
>=20
> David and Jon
>=20
>=20