Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB: Proposal: Joe -3 (Was Re: Comments on draft-asai-vmm-mib-04)

On 8/29/13 10:02 AM, ietfdbh wrote:
>>>> I really don't like the idea of standards prohibiting potentially
>>>> useful functionality.
> 
> I would like a better understanding/description of the problems that would
> be caused by having persistent values for these objects  in some
> implementations and volatile values in other implementations, to justify the
> MUST NOT usage.
> 
> I would like a better understanding of the benefits that might lead some
> implementers to have persistent values in their implementations; what
> possible useful functionality could we be prohibiting by making this a MUST
> NOT?

To me, the intent of this MIB is to not be a way of setting persistent
configuration.  This is to prevent POLA violations where I may be used
to VMware's implementation (for example), and then get astonished when I
find that Xen persists the state of the same object that VMware held
volatile.

If the MIB language was more definitive, then an operator would know
that if one of these objects was implemented read-write the setting
would only apply to the current running state, and there would be no
room for ambiguity.

Joe

> 
> 
> David Harrington
> ietfdbh@comcast.net
> +1-603-828-1401
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Hirochika Asai
>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:28 AM
>> To: Joe Marcus Clarke
>> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB: Proposal: Joe -3 (Was Re: Comments on
>> draft-asai-vmm-mib-04)
>>
>>
>> As for the read-write objects, i.e., vmMinCpuNumber, vmMaxCpuNumber,
>> vmMinMem, and vmMaxMem, I changed the following phrase for the next
>> version of the draft.
>>
>> (deleted) Changes to this object may not persist across restarts of the
>> hypervisor
>> (added) Changes to this object must not persist across restarts of the
>> hypervisor
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Hirochika
>>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Joe Marcus Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Just to be absolutely clear...
>>>> Are you requesting that the normative text state that the values
>>>> assigned to these object-types SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT persist across
>>>> reboots?
>>>>
>>>> I really don't like the idea of standards prohibiting potentially
>>>> useful functionality.
>>>
>>> I was asking for the latter since this MIB is not about configuration.
>>> I think it would be a POLA violation if one vendor did a persistent
>>> implementation and some did a volatile implementation.
>>
>> --
>> Hirochika Asai <panda@hongo.wide.ad.jp>, The University of Tokyo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> OPSAWG@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 

-- 
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: jclarke@cisco.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------