To: "Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>, <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:16:27 -0700
In my experience, it is useful, if not
necessary, to distinguish between the instrumentation (and/or
management infrastructure) and managed objects.
This is because one has to think and plan for
management of the instrumentation as well; the corresponding software needs to
be provisioned and patched, monitors fail and agents need to be restarted,
alerts have to be raised because instrumentation is failing, etc. I
______________________________ Muhamed Aganagic, Ph.D.
Enterprise Platforms Group
Advanced Systems Development Director of Technology
SC12-320, 3600 Juliette Lane Santa
Office: 408 765 7025; Mobile:408 718 4911
-----Original Message----- From: Sedukhin, Igor S
[mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] Sent:Thursday, August 07, 2003 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com Subject: RE: [wsdm] Terminology in
In this case my concern is only the way
the requirement is stated in the document and the words in the definition. When
I showed our MUWS reqs document to other people this is how they
interpret it back to me.
In general, instead of arguing about the
semantics why don't we just relax the definitions that we use.
342-4325..1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY11788
Message----- From: M. Homayoun Pourheidari [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent:Thursday, August 07, 2003 To: Sedukhin, Igor S Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: [wsdm] Terminology in
Igor, et. al
Although I agree with your general comment that we don't want to limit ourselves
to a traditional agent based model, I do not agree with your interpretation of
what a managed object means. In fact, the term "managed object"
is used to generalize on the manageability representation and interfaces of a
resource that is managed without promoting an agent based or agent less model
and I don't interpret the use of "managed object" as you described
Nonetheless, I'm not religious about these things.
Sedukhin, Igor S wrote:
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
We do not want to be limited by defining requirements on
management using agents as suggested.
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.
PS. By "we" here I mean CA. And this is a violent