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"
> >>>>> <[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

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
the way...

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.

Cheers,

David