Subject: RE: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues

From: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:09:03 -0700

Not sure what "we omit this capability" means in this context.

Conflict detection needs to be done, for efficiency reasons, as well as
"correctness", at *each* level of a policy management system. e.g. 
- human has to not click on 2 contradictory things at the same time
- policy mgmt system has to make sure that contradictory things are not
stored in its database at the same time
- SNMP MIB must not have 2 ways of configuring the same thing (else neither
manager nor agent can check - see below)
- SNMP manager has to make sure that it does not include 2 contradictory SET
varbinds in the same PDU
- SNMP agent has to check for same
- low-level classifier has to be unambiguous
etc.

Some of these things are implementation common sense. Some of them involve
sensible MIB design. Some of them involve providing hooks such that
implementations can do the right thing (the "this instance is under local
control" bit that we've discussed is an example of this).  

I don't have any firm proposals, but we cannot just sweep this one under the
carpet. It needs to be considered at all stages in this WG's work and some
sort of write-up needs to be present in the documents, even if there are no
specific protocol or data structure implications.

Just my 2c.

Andrew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Saperia [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 7:19 AM
> To: snmpconf
> Subject: snmpconf Conflict Resolution Issues
... 
> 2. Is conflict detection or resolution a goal?
> 
> Both are hard. Unless someone has a specific proposal, I 
> suggest that we
> omit this capability or recommend that it be left to the 
> ingenuity of the
> equipment or manager software developers.

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:27:30 -0400

> stored in its database at the same time

Agreed. This is part of what I mentioned in an earlier posting in response
to David H. One place this may be noted is in the BCP.

> - low-level classifier has to be unambiguous
All these points make good sense to me and we should include them in the
policy section of the BCP - I am going to focus on that between now and ID
cutoff.

> specific protocol or data structure implications.
Thanks for the suggestions. At least for now, we can hold these topics in
the BCP.

/jon