Subject: snmpconf BCP - Issue # 2 - Correct any remaining technical errors (fwd)

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 11:23:19 -0400

Resend, I had an email problem. Sorry for any duplicates.
/jon
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Thu, 10 May 2001 08:53:07 -0400
From:    Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
To:      [email-masked]
Subject: BCP - Issue # 2 - Correct any remaining technical errors

Here is the current status of the items as they will appear in the
upcoming draft.  

> Issues:
> 
>             On some items, improve guidance 
>                   overlapping controls 
>                   fate sharing on read-create tables 

There are revised sections for the two above items.

>             Agent/X considerations 

There is no section on this topic. If anyone has specific words to
contribute please post them to the WG list for possible inclusion in the
final draft to be published next month.

>             Protocol details - Wes & Bert's comments 

Numerous changes have been made. Mike took Bert's comments and went
through the document.

>             Improve Set Latency Example

We have a new example that should be easy to understand involving a
rotating wheel whose direction or rotation is changed via a set
operation.

Thanks,
/jon

- --
Jon Saperia		     [email-masked]
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/
------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: Matt White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 18:55:39 -0400

> final draft to be published next month.

Not sure what this would be since AgentX is designed to be invisible to 
management stations.

-Matt

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:01:34 -0400

> Not sure what this would be since AgentX is designed to be invisible to 
Agreed. There is a fairly extensive section on MIB Module design and
implementation issues. Even that that I am still not sure what we would
include. There is no section in the current posting on Agent/X. Clearly
there can be issues with the construction of configuration (or any other
structures) that must span sub-agents. Different sub agent technologies
have different abilities as you know. That said, I am not sure what we
can should write. For that reason, I am happy to remain silent. If
anyone does have a proposal now would be the right time as we collect
edits for the final draft before last call.

Thanks,
/jon
--

---

From: Mike MacFaden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 19:17:47 -0700

At 06:55 PM 5/11/01 -0400, Matt White wrote:
>--On Friday, May 11, 2001 11:23 AM -0400 Jon Saperia <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>           Agent/X considerations
>>>Not sure what this would be since AgentX is designed to be invisible to management stations.

I agree but often times, reality bites.

I think I recall the flollowing example Shawn A. Routhier told me:
If a single table spans a few subagents, creating an ifNumber-like
object might be tricky to get right for a given implementation. 

In any case, I would propose any agentX specifics
end up in a specific document on agentX / distributed agent
implementation experience.

Regards,
Mike

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 08:44:52 -0400

> implementation experience.
Yup, I also agree that the right thing to do is leave it out of the BCP.

Thanks,
/jon
--