Re: snmpconf Status of our work

>>>>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:10:11 -0400, "Harrington, David" <[email protected]> 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 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 is just restating old advise.  It
doesn't make it more likely it'll be followed at this point though...

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta