Re: Question on RowStatus (StorageType)

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

Bert - you must remember my long held view on StorageType, which is
its semantics don't match that found in most devices.
And the inter-table instance consistency as specified below
can really be difficult (or impossible) to implement on
many systems. Also, I have some problems with the terminology
used in the descriptions. For example,
"...storage type for this object."
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
Taken at face value, I read this as an instance of this column.
I doubt that was the intent. More likely, what was meant was
"the configuration objects for the instance of the row" (or
your favorite way of saying this).

In general, I get really worried when I see terms like "the agent",
since it is a "resource manager" and not "the agent" that
controls instances of a resource.

Don't want to start a fight - maybe just over reacting to
a model that looks like an SNMP agent is in control, instead
of a model where there is a "management interface" to SNMP, CLI, etc,
and a resource manager that controls the resource. 

At 03:38 PM 5/16/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>In the MPLS LSR mib, I see:
>
>mplsInSegmentStorageType OBJECT-TYPE
>   SYNTAX        StorageType
>   MAX-ACCESS    read-only
>   STATUS        current
>   DESCRIPTION
>       "This variable indicates the storage type for this
>        object. If this object is set to readOnly(5), and the
>        corresponding LFIB entry is removed, then the agent
>        MUST remove this row shortly thereafter [RFC2579].
>        The agent MUST ensure that this object's value
>        remains consistent with the associated mplsXCEntry.
>        The default value is volatile(2)."
>   DEFVAL { volatile }
>   ::= { mplsInSegmentEntry 11 }
>
>My questions:
>- I think that it is OK that an agent can remove such readOnly rows
>  when the underlying data ceases to exist. If anyone thinks that
>  is not correct, pls holler.
>- The sentence about an agent needing to keep the object consistent
>  with one or more stoargeTypes in other tables worries me.
>  I guess it is OK. Maybe what I want them to do is to add text aka:
>        If a SET request tries to set a vlue that is inconsistent
>        with that associated mplsXCentry, then a inconcistentValue
>        error should be returned.
>
>Comments pls
>
>Thanks,
>Bert 
Regards,
/david t. perkins