Re: ordering constraints / procedures

[David Harrington <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi all,

It appears that there are a number of interpretations of "ordering
constraints" and "procedures".

If you feel that the feature, as per your interpretation, is a
requirement, be sure to submit in the proper format for inclusion in the
requirements list. 

If it determined to be a duplicate interpretation, it can be removed
later. If it is determined after the cutoff that your interpretation is
different than the interpretation which is already posted, it may be
difficult to get it added to the requirements later. Identifying all
these little underlying assumptions, and identifying the real
requirements, is part of the reason why we are going through gathering
and posting the proposed requirements.

Dave Durham, I suggest an additional field in the proposals - the name
of the person proposing and/or justifying the requirement, so we can ask
for further clarification if needed.

dbh


Edward P Luwish wrote:
> 
> In my opinion the distinction is whether or not an operation depends on the
> result of an earlier operation.
> 
> Simple ordering constraints can be satisfied by the manager issuing a single
> request containing all the required varbinds, letting the agent impose the
> required order and error/consistency checking.  In other words the
> constraints are relevant only when varbinds are issued in separate requests,
> where the agent may produce side effects before "realizing" that a required
> parameter is missing or erroneous.
> 
> A procedure can not be performed that way since the manager would have to
> examine the response before issuing a subsequent (separate) request.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> > >>>>> Robert Story writes:
> >
> > Robert> 1) SMIng must provide a mechanism to formally express ordering
> > Robert> constraints.
> >
> > Robert> 2) SMIng should support a mechanism to formally define
> > Robert> procedures that are used by managers when interacting with an
> > Robert> agent.
> >
> > Robert> Can someone explain if there is a difference between these
> > Robert> two? If they are the same, I vote that the "ordering
> > Robert> constraints" name is clearer than "procedures."
> >
> > The concept of procedures came out of some discussions about
> > methods. Right now, people implement methods with a couple of writable
> > objects, some status objects that report the status of the invoked
> > "method", and some result/error objects. To use these objects, the
> > manager has to follow certain procedures such as:
> >
> > (1) create/set the following set of objects
> > (2) poll the following objects until the method is complete
> > (3) retrieve some objects which carry result/error information
> > (4) do some cleanup set operations
> >
> > In other words, procedures probably go somewhat further than just
> > ordering constraints (but frankly, I also do not know what ordering
> > constraints includes and what not).
> >
> > Disclaimer: I am just trying to clarify where these requirements came
> > from and what they mean. This should not be read as a statement that I
> > support these ideas or not.
> >
> > /js
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
> > <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> > Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
> > Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

-- 
---
David Harrington            Network Management Standards Architect
dbh@enterasys.com           Office of the CTO
+1 603 337 2614 - voice     Enterasys Networks
+1 603 332 1524 - fax       Rochester NH, USA