Subject: Re: Disman WG session in DC?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:06:41 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 15:33:10 +0200
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Disman WG session in DC?
> References:  <[email-masked]>
...
> We can in principle open up the script and the scheduling MIBs. There
> are a number of issues that came up during implementation work. We can
> go through these issues and discuss possible solutions so that we can
> work on a revision of the RFCs. A short session should be sufficient
> for this purpose.
> 
> I am not saying we have to do this. It is just something we could do
> if we have a chance to get enough implementors together in Washington.
...

This is what our charter says we're supposed to be doing now.  I'd be much
more comfortable requesting a meeting slot if there were more discussion
of these topics on the list.  I think we should not wait for a face-to-
face meeting to find out whether there are any problems.

It'd help if someone were to take a stab at posting issues lists for
the script and schedule MIBs.  I believe these lists would be quite
short.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]     http://www.bmc.com/
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 18:45:27 +0200

>>>>> Randy Presuhn writes:

Randy> I think we should not wait for a face-to-face meeting to find
Randy> out whether there are any problems.

Agreed. However, there are some issues that have already been on this
list, but we simply deferred work on a resolution.

Randy> It'd help if someone were to take a stab at posting issues
Randy> lists for the script and schedule MIBs.  I believe these lists
Randy> would be quite short.

Here is what I have in my records. This list does not necessarily
include all issues that were raised so far. Please let me/us know if
there are things missing.

- Script MIB:

  o RFC 2592 refers to smLanguageTable and smExtensionTable which are
    now called smLangTable and smExtnsTable. (section 7, editorial)

  o Restartable scripts

  o Error message during script retrieval or compilation (smScriptError)

  o Scripts that can run forever without having to reset smRunLifeTime

  o Index smLangTable and smExtsnTable by name rather than Integer32

  o Dependencies between scripts and script versioning (Eamonn)

  o Storage type of script code versus storage type of script meta
    information

- Schedule MIB:

  o Sets on arbitrary objects triggered by the scheduler

Once again, I am not pushing for a meeting in Washington. Such a
meeting only makes sense for me if there is a critical mass of people
who want the issues listed above (or any additional issues I have
forgotten) resolved so that we can move forward.

I personally would prefer to make changes soon, especially if they
introduce any non-trivial changes in implementations (means we have to
recycle at proposed).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>