From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Nov 19 13:26:59 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12103 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id gAJIV0q16537; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:31:00 -0600 (CST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA11127 for agentx-list; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:21:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from flicker.bmc.com (flicker.bmc.com [172.20.8.40]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA11111; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx-us-sjc-2-int.bmc.com (IDENT:postfix@mx-us-sjc-2.bmc.com [198.175.229.198]) by flicker.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id gAJIJKc22407; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from vmmr6.verisignmail.com (vmmr6.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.147]) by mx-us-sjc-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5012222EE6; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:48:52 -0600 (CST) Received: from vmms6.verisignmail.com (vmms6.verisignmail.com [10.166.0.148]) by vmmr6.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id PMY26668; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from BOB.AppliedSNMP.com (pcp829873pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.128.134]) by vmms6.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id PPY28590; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:18:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021119131109.020d2cd8@mail.AppliedSNMP.com> X-Sender: Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com@mail.AppliedSNMP.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:21:21 -0500 To: Wes Hardaker From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: Event MIB sub agent? Cc: disman@dorothy.bmc.com, agentx@dorothy.bmc.com In-Reply-To: References: <3DCF6F18.9020001@ipb.pt> <200211090242.SAA20465@dorothy.bmc.com> <3DCF6F18.9020001@ipb.pt> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list At 11/11/2002:12:00 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote: Hi Wes, ><...> >Anyway, the last time I asked this exact same question I got an "Why >would you want to do that?" answer. IE, the expectation was that the >event mib wasn't even intended to be implemented in a subagent. Yes, it sounds reasonable (esp. from an architectural perspective) that "generic" services MIBs (i.e., those not directly related to managed entity operations) might best be implemented at the master agent level. Several of the DISMAN MIBs are probably good examples of what I think would be categorized as generic services MIBs. >Therefore, the master agent should always do the monitoring of the >subagents rather than have the subagents do self monitoring of themselves. Again, I think that approach serves the industry well, both from an architectural perspective and from an ease-of-implementation approach (for sub-agent developers). This is particularly true of SNMPv3 security. Granted, additional capabilities must be added to AgentX before such guidance can be implemented in a standard way (applies to both the "generic services" and the "security control" guidance). Carrying that discussion forward should probably be done on the AgentX list, either now or as part of the future consideration of AgentX as a candidate Full Standard. Cheers, BobN