Subject: snmpconf Issues for Interim Meeting

From: "Jon Saperia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 09:41:30 -0400

For those of you that were at our meetings in Adelaide or have read the 
draft notes I posted to this list, you will know that we have a number of
issues to discuss.

As only an example, a question was raised about the effect of the addition
of an element to a managed system that had an entry in our Policy Module.
Specifically, did that new element get configured with the default
information? There are a number of reasonable views on this topic.

If anyone has items that can be concisely stated that will help us in our
work and would like to suggest them as agenda items for the meeting next
month, please feel free to post them to this list and I will collect them
together to help refine an agenda.

Thanks
/jon

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:23:00 +0200

Jon,

I raised during the meeting the question of the interaction with multiple
managers. The answer was that the WG sees as a goal allowing such an
interaction (which is different from the COPS single server paradigm). Later
in the discussions, the proposal of a policy owner concept as a possible
solution to this problem as brought up, though we did not engage in too many
details. 

I would suggest that we include this issue in the agenda items for the
interim meeting.

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jon Saperia [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Thu April 06 2000 15:42
> To:	snmpconf
> Subject:	snmpconf Issues for Interim Meeting
>

---

From: "Jon Saperia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:33:30 -0400

> I would suggest that we include this issue in the agenda items for the
Excellent point, I have started a list and have added this.

Thanks
/jon