RE: question on PIB and Counter32/Counter64

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Juergen has corrected me (on the rap maling list) that
RFC3159 indeed prohibits use of Counter32/64... Blush
on my side.

So that still leaves the question why their new TCs then make
sense.

If you'd rather participate in public on the rap mailing list,
that is fine too... My concerns are about not duplicating things
in SPPI that we already have in SMI. 

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: donderdag 19 december 2002 16:07
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: question on PIB and Counter32/Counter64
> 
> 
> My concerns are:
> 
> - The statement that Counter32 and Counter64 cannot be used in SPPI,
>   I think is false.
> 
> - as far as I can tell the new Usage32 and Usage64 TCs are (very) 
>   similar to ZerobasedCounter32/64 so why not re-use them?
>  
> Am I worrying too much?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
> > Sent: donderdag 19 december 2002 16:00
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Mreview (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: question on PIB and Counter32/Counter64
> > 
> > 
> > Bert,
> > 
> > Can you explain your concern? Is this about whether the 
> > additional semantics is needed? Should we not rely on the 
> > judgment of the authors? Assuming it is, do you have a 
> > proposal for an alternate way of providing it? Also, is there 
> > a problem to use these TCs in MIBs? 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 4:30 PM
> > > To: Mreview (E-mail)
> > > Subject: question on PIB and Counter32/Counter64
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If you could take a quick look at 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr
> > > -pib-04.txt
> > > 
> > > section 3.2, then you can read:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    The SPPI does not support the Counter32/64 textual 
> > > conventions (TC) 
> > >    of SNMP - for feedback collection two similar textual 
> > conventions 
> > >    have been defined in this PIB: Usage32 and Usage64. 
> > >  
> > >    In addition to the differential functionality of 
> > 'Counter', where 
> > >    only the difference between two samples generally carries 
> > >    information, a single value of a 'Usage' attribute usually 
> > > provides 
> > >    absolute information, since 
> > >    - its initial value is known (0) 
> > >    - no wrap-around events should occur 
> > >    - the time or event when the initial value was set 
> should be    
> > >      available directly or indirectly from other objects. 
> > >     
> > >    When 'Usage' attributes are defined in a PRC, events 
> that could 
> > >    cause a reset of the attribute to it's initial value should be 
> > >    defined in the description as well as the mechanism that 
> > > allows the 
> > >    PDP to detect the time of the last reset. 
> > >     
> > >    No usual COPS activity however should cause the reset 
> of a Usage 
> > >    attribute. In the case of a suspension of monitoring activity 
> > >    (frwkFeedbackActionIndicator set to 
> > > 'suspendMonitoringAndReports'), 
> > >    'Usage' attributes should keep their values and continue 
> > counting 
> > >    after monitoring is resumed. 
> > >     
> > > 
> > > I don't agree with that and I worry about them defining Usage32 
> > > and Usage64 TCs to be used instead of Counter32/64 and/or
> > > ZeroBasedCounter32/64
> > > 
> > > Any comments?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bert 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>