Proposed wordsmithing to notification throttling guideline

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

Folks --

If there are no objections, I would like to change the
notification throttling text (last paragraph of Section
4.7) from:

   In many cases notifications will be triggered by external events, and
   sometimes it will be possible for those external events to occur at a
   sufficiently rapid rate that sending a notification for each
   occurrence would overwhelm the network.  In such cases a mechanism
   MUST be provided for limiting the rate at which the notification can
   be generated.  One mechanism that has been widely used is to require
   the notification generator to use throttling -- that is, to ensure
   that no more than one notification is generated for each event source
   in any given time interval of duration T.  The throttling period T
   MAY be configurable, in which case it would be specified in a MIB
   object, or it MAY be fixed, in which case it would be specified in
   the notification definition.  Examples of the fixed time interval
   technique can be found in the SNMP-REPEATER-MIB [RFC2108] and in the
   ENTITY-MIB [RFC2737].

to:

   In many cases notifications will be triggered by external events, and
   sometimes it will be possible for those external events to occur at a
   sufficiently rapid rate that sending a notification for each
   occurrence would overwhelm the network.  In such cases a mechanism
   MUST be provided for limiting the rate at which the notification can
   be generated.  A common technique is to require that the notification
   generator use throttling -- that is, to require that it generate no
   more than one notification for each event source in any given time
   interval of duration T.  The throttling period T MAY be configurable,
   in which case it is specified in a MIB object, or it MAY be fixed, in
   which case it is specified in the notification definition.  Examples
   of the fixed time interval technique can be found in the SNMP-
   REPEATER-MIB [RFC2108] and in the ENTITY-MIB [RFC2737].

Does anyone object to this proposed change?

Mike