Subject: snmpconf comments on the minutes

From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 14:35:37 -0400

Hi,

A couple comments.

"During discussion, it was observed that capacity and usage/utilization
feedback is an important part of the process." was changed from what I
sent in. My original was an observation that feedback is important. I
don't think it was meant to be limited to feedback about capacity and
usage/utilization. I think it was meant to also include verification of
appropriate expansions, etc.

I didn't capitalize a number of vendor names in the attendees list. they
should be capitalized.

A paragraph about scheduling being a particular type of mode shift was
removed, even though it was discussed. Was there a reason for removing
it?

We discussed whether operators should be allowed to override policy.
That discussion was removed from your version.

"The BNF expressing the expression" might be better as "expressing the
syntax." This was changed so as to not use "language" to describe the
expression expression, but we have a whole section in day two relating
to language issues. It might be wise to change the use "language" there
as well.

"SETs and compund statements - are not allowed in filters." Why the '-'?

In the mention of Perl, I should have made environment plural.

You changed my spelling of accessor to acessor, which I questioned.  I
cannot find accessor or acessor in the dictionary, my C++ books, or my
Java books. Maybe we should change it to "access" functions everywhere.

"assessor functions" should be made consistent with other usage.

I would change "Conflict Issues" to "Conflict Resolution Issues" to
differentiate it from issues where the WG has conflict ;-)

Under conflict issues, you have used single-spacing, while you used
double spacing in other lists.

I suggest you use a [end of list] marker in the minutes, to make it more
apparent when the context has changed.

"Andrew suggested that a team might want to do more work on this" was
changed from my version that said "A design team was proposed by Andrew
to capture the relationships for use not only by snmpconf, but by other
working groups as well." I think my version better reflected the
original proposal.

dbh
-- 
---
David Harrington            Network Management Architect Engineer
[email-masked]           Office of the CTO
+1 603 337 2614 - voice     Enterasys Networks
+1 603 332 1524 - fax       Rochester NH, USA

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 16:38:01 -0400

> appropriate expansions, etc.

Ahh...I see your point. The change was to reflect other notes I made and a
comment I made on this point. I will add in your comment about including
verification etc.
> I didn't capitalize a number of vendor names in the attendees list. they
Done.

> removed, even though it was discussed. Was there a reason for removing

Yes, I was not able to understand what you wrote. If you would like to
reword it I will be happy to include it.
> That discussion was removed from your version.

Probably I had the same problem. If you would like to write a sentence or
two, I will be happy to include it.
> expression expression, but we have a whole section in day two relating

done.

> to language issues. It might be wise to change the use "language" there

Same comment as above.
> "SETs and compund statements - are not allowed in filters." Why the '-'?
don't know why, it is fixed now.

> In the mention of Perl, I should have made environment plural.

done.

> Java books. Maybe we should change it to "access" functions everywhere.

I had trouble with this as well though I think I had a correct spelling at
one time. The change may have been the auto correction helping me :-( I
checked and found it changed only in one place. It is now how you had it.
Steve Waldbusser, you started using the term. What is the spelling you
intended?
> differentiate it from issues where the WG has conflict ;-)

Done.
> double spacing in other lists.

Fixed.

> apparent when the context has changed.

Done for my lists.
> working groups as well." I think my version better reflected the

I think I have pretty his intent at the meeting correctly captured given
some of his email. If I have made an error, Andrew perhaps you could offer
some text.

> dbh

David, thanks for the notes and for the careful review.

/jon