Tom,
Saying that Windows is not an operating system in some key respects because it
doesn't provide the infrastructure that apps need (because it doesn't provide
SNMP support natively) is a little like saying Solaris shouldn't be called a
desktop environment because it doesn't provide Beryl as
Hi,
[speaking as a contributor]
We have already submitted the protocol document.
If everybody else is satisfied the terminology is clear in that
document, with the minor fixes you have made), then I will not oppose
it simply moving forward.
I do want to make sure the descriptions in the mib doc
Hi,
[speaking as a contributor, and a MIB Doctor]
> -Original Message-
> From: tom.petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Using Tables is the standard SNMP technique for managing multiple
> > instances. That is exactly what is done in the current MIB.
> > >
>
> Well, no.
As a MIB Doc
Hi,
[speaking as co-chair]
MIB Issue#1 is not about whether Windows is a real operating system.
If you want to have that discussion feel free, but please do it
elsewhere - it is inappropriate for the syslog WG, and it is certainly
off-topic for MIB Issue#1.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Tom,
> -Original Message-
> From: tom.petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:40 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking
consensus
>
> Rainer
>
> Using this as a convenient peg on which to
Rainer
Using this as a convenient peg on which to hang an answer.
You asked about software architecture. I think that for all its commercial
success, Windows is not, in some key respects, an operating system in that it
does not provide the infrastructure that applications deserve. You point ou
Being not MIB-literate, I tend to agree that it does not add much
complexity if there is a table which most often includes just a single
element.
What is used in practice. It depends on your point of view. If you look
at deployments, a single engine is the vast majority. If you look at
number of d
Tom,
> Which technique is best depends on whether the occurrence of
> multiple instances is the norm, which should be modelled and
> supported. I think that this is not the case for syslog and
> so the additional complexity is not justified. I imagine you
> think otherwise.
The syslogMIB leaves i
Hi Tom,
>> I think that this is not the case for syslog and so the additional
complexity is not justified.
IMHO, adding an option for Multiple instance does not add additional
complexity;
It just adds an option for extensibility.
Thanks
Rohit
-Original Message-
From: tom.petch [ma
- Original Message -
From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "tom.petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking consensus
> tom.petch wr
David,
I will happily do that. But before I can, I need to go back to the
discussion on architecture in syslog-protocol. Is this issue solved? Do
we need a new section or are the proposed definition updates enough?
I am asking these questions because I think we need to be clear on the
terminology
11 matches
Mail list logo
