On 8/29/13 3:45 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > >> From: "Joe Marcus Clarke" <[email protected]> >> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:29 PM >> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB: Proposal: Joe -3 (Was Re: Comments on >> draft-asai-vmm-mib-04) > ... >> Would it not be better to implement something like NETCONF for the >> configuration side of things if I really wanted to offer configuration? >> then this MIB could really be left for monitoring. > > Punting the configuration problem to Netconf doesn't reduce the > modeling (or operational) complexity presented by read-write objects > like these. If you argue instead that they should be read-only, that's > another matter (though still fraught with complexity, given the ways > Netconf can work) but doing so also, for me at least, raises the "why > bother" question regarding this MIB module. If these objects would > merely reflect the current configuration data, then they'd add no value, > and there'd be no point in having them at all.
I would be happy with read-only objects that showed the operational values. But there was a use case for changing the operational parameters via SNMP SET. In either case, I think the values and operations should reflect the operational state. Joe -- Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384, | | SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP ||||| ||||| Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:.. Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867 c i s c o S y s t e m s Email: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
