RE: snmpconf RE: Policy issues: definition of Roles

[Francis Reichmeyer -NJ <FranR@iphighway.com>]

It may be too late for this thread, but I've copied the
polterm list. Future discussions of this sort might
benefit from including polterm as well.
Thanks,
-Fran


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Smith [mailto:andrew@extremenetworks.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 8:24 PM
> To: 'Ken Roberts'
> Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com; 'snmpconf@snmp.com'
> Subject: snmpconf RE: Policy issues: definition of Roles
> 
> 
> e.g. "HTTP traffic gets AF treatment on all Ethernet and FDDI 
> interfaces" is
> a policy rule that references two roles: "Ethernet 
> interfaces" and "FDDI
> interfaces". You wouldn't bother sending that rule to 
> token-ring devices.
> 
> (I guess I'm really an assembler programmer so I don't 
> understand these
> "class" and "subclass" things you talk about).
> 
> Andrew
> 
> P.S. Maybe we should drop the "policy framework" list from 
> this thread since
> this appears to be purely a "device" thing. But I did think we were
> attempting the (maybe thankless) task of unifying the 
> terminology between
> all the WGs.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Roberts [mailto:kjr@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 4:42 PM
> To: Andrew Smith; 'Bob Natale'
> Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com; 'snmpconf@snmp.com'
> Subject: RE: Policy issues: definition of Roles
> 
> 
> Gents & others, 
> I'm a little confused by Andrew's statement of a policy that 
> has multiple
> roles. I understood a policy had rules. Rules may be crafted 
> to include the
> notion of roles but are they separate rules or sub classes of 
> one rule?
> When the statement "A policy that references roles W and X" 
> is made does
> this imply there is a matrix relationship that can be 
> established from one
> parent policy (/rule)? How is this managed? Why is this required? If
> policies have hierarchical structure can this not be done 
> with containment
> or another relationship?
> I think I had better re-read the thread as maybe I've missed 
> something. 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------ 
> Regards, 
> Ken Roberts 
> INM Product Architecture 
> Nortel Networks 
> ?ESN   :        655-7844                        ?Direct  : 
> 408-565-7844 
> ?  Fax    :        408-565-8226 
> ? email :      kjr@nortelnetworks.com 
>   
> This message may contain information proprietary to Nortel Networks
> Corporation so any 
> unauthorised disclosure, copying or distribution of its 
> contents is strictly
> prohibited. 
>  -----Original Message----- 
> From:   Andrew Smith [mailto:andrew@extremenetworks.com] 
> Sent:   Monday, January 31, 2000 3:36 PM 
> To:     'Bob Natale' 
> Cc:     policy@raleigh.ibm.com; 'snmpconf@snmp.com' 
> Subject:        RE: Policy issues: definition of Roles 
> And, in particular, you only need to tell the device about 
> those roles that 
> are relevant to it - that is where the big savings are, I think. e.g. 
> 1. Device A has roles W, X and Y. 
> 2. Device B has roles W, X and Z. 
> 3. A policy that references roles W and X should be 
> downloaded to both 
> devices. 
> 4. A policy that references roles W and Y should be 
> downloaded only to 
> device A, not device B. 
> The role combination concept in the PIB was introduced 
> specifically in order
> 
> to do this: you have to be able to list only those roles that 
> are relevant 
> to the policy, not necessarily ALL roles on the device, in a role 
> combination. 
> (Apologies if I'm repeating stuff here). 
> Andrew 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Bob Natale [mailto:bnatale@acecomm.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 3:27 PM 
> > To: Andrew Smith 
> > Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com 
> > Subject: RE: Policy issues: definition of Roles 
> ... 
> > That works fine for me.  All I care about on this thread is that a 
> > "role combination" DOES NOT HAVE to include ALL of the 
> roles supported 
> > by a network entity/component (although there MAY well be a role 
> > combination which does incorporate all roles supported by a network 
> > entity/component). 
>