Thus quoth Sedukhin, Igor S (~ 07-Aug-03 11:16 AM ~)...
> We have a problem in agreeing to the requirements that state "managed
> object MUST expose <whatever>". It prescribes certain way of doing
> management. These requirements are on the "The software component
> representing or part of the manageable resource responsible for
> interacting with the manager is referred to as the/ managed object/ in
> this document. Traditionally, such software is also known as/ agent/."
>
> We do not want to be limited by defining requirements on management
> using agents as suggested.
I don't think that was the intent of the statement. I think that the
"Traditionally ... /agent/" part was added by way of explanation.
Nonetheless, I'd agree that it /could/ be interpreted that way, and, as
such, could be confusing.
>
> We propose to use more generic phrasing around ALL of such requirements.
> For example, We propose to phrase it as follows "<whatever> MUST be
> provided for a manageable resource". This phrase says WHAT instead of
> implying HOW.
I think this phraseology is fine. Indeed, it remains completely
agnostic of implementation which is good.
>
> PS. By "we" here I mean CA. And this is a violent objection :).
>
> --* **Igor Sedukhin* .. ()
> --* (631) 342-4325* .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
>
--
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.
mailto:
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301
