[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Call for censensus on path forward
While I like some of Wes's proposal (and fundamentally EXTREMELY
some of the technical items in Wes's proposal), I have a higher
problem with the WG working on Wes's proposal. The issue is that it
is research and dependent on SMIng additions. Also, I feel (but
needs to be verified), that Wes's proposal means substantial
in all management information access code. This is just a show
On the other hand, I believe that the GETCOLs proposal might be
implementable with changes only to the SNMP agent. If so, it can be
"easily" deployed in the next "system release cycle".
And it compared
to the old "GETROW" proposal, actually provides much benefits
At 02:05 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, Glenn Waters wrote:
Thanks for prodding me
My observation so far is that there is pretty much unanimous
support for Wes's proposal with a number of people suggesting we should
pick up some of the ideas in Dave Sheild's proposal.
If there are any other opinions out there please get them to
the list. There has been no recent discussion on the Keeni proposal and
there has been no discussion on the Perkins proposal.
I will be posting what I believe to be consensus on Monday
unless significant discussion still appears to be going on.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hardaker
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 11:10
> To: Waters, Glenn [CAR:IO47:EXCH]
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Call for censensus on path forward
> >>>>> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:51:32 -0400, "Glenn Waters"
> <email@example.com> said:
> Glenn> The working group needs to come to consensus around which
> Glenn> problems that should be solved and which of the solutions below
> Glenn> best addresses those problems.
> Glenn> I will announce the summary of the consensus call one week from
> Glenn> today (Monday, September 23) *unless* there is still active
> Glenn> discussion which would preclude being able to make a reasonable
> Glenn> decision at that time.
> The deadline is coming up rather fast, and I think we should be
> hearing more voices of people that have read the drafts (authors
> excluded, we know what you'd (we'd) vote for). This WG greatly needs
> to hear the opinions of interested parties if any work is to go
> Personally, I've read all the drafts and there is good merit in all of
> them. Obviously, I'm biased toward the solution which I think is
> right (mine, of course ;-) but all the drafts are well worth reading.
> I decided personally to leave out logic expressions from the filtering
> in my draft solely because I didn't want to complicate the agent
> processing any further. David Perkin's has logical expressions in his
> draft (&& || ...) and I'm very interested in hearing whether people
> think this is a good thing or a bad thing, as it's a question I've
> been meaning to ask the WG but was waiting until after a direction was
> picked. (I'd add logical expressions in a different manner than David
> did, but it's the concept I'm curious if people want or not.
> Currently, my draft has an implicit AND operation on all filtering
> "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will
> insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." -- Terry
/david t. perkins