Subject: Re: snmpconf 11. Setcli accessor function - Item to be resolved on email list

From: Jeff Case <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:35:00 -0500 (EST)

jon:

i was not able to be a part of the discussions in the minutes

i think that there is some standardization that can be done on this, but
only a limited amount ... the stuff "under" the setcli accessor function
will almost certainly be platform-dependent and implementation dependent,
i.e., what strings can be poked into the cli are not subject to our
standardization at this time

however, we should be able to standardize the name of such a function and
the minimum error behavior that it exhibits and i think we should try to
do so at this time

regarding your concern 3, below, i suggest that if discussion reveals that
others share your concerns, then we can handle them through appropriately
worded compliance statements

i think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks and we should give this a try

regards,
jdc

--------

>A review of the minutes shows a conversation about the benefits and
>drawbacks of introducing a setcli accessor function. On thinking about
>it more, I suggest that we may want to omit it for now because of:
>
>   1. One more item to work on in the document
>   2. Could be complex from a security perspective
>   3. May delay rather than help adoption of the technology we are
>working on.
>
>I do not feel very strongly about this, but thought I would put this out
>to get the ball rolling to see if there are any strongly held views.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:25:06 -0500

I must be missing something.   I do not understand the value of our 
standardizing "the name of the function and the minimum error 
behavior".  Given that the parameters will be different for different 
systems, having the name the same actually seems almost 
counter-productive.  It certainly does not seem like something we should be 
puttting time and energy into at this point in the process.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern