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

[Joe Marcus Clarke <[e-mail]>]

On 8/29/13 3:45 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
>> From: "Joe Marcus Clarke" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>> 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: [phone]         c i s c o  S y s t e m s
Email: [e-mail]

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