RE: Notifications

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

Mike, sect 10.3 is about adding OBJECTS to the DEFINITION of
a notification. My understanding was that we were talking about
sect 8.1, last paragraph!

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 30 januari 2004 5:54
> To: mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Notifications
> 
> 
> At 01:04 PM 1/29/2004, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> > I've never viewed it as good practice. The problem is when that
> > the SMI cab be updated to add extra varbinds as happens with
> > linkUp and linkDown. So for the same varbind in some
> > implementations you see what is in the SMI and in others you see
> > random junk. Yeah, sure you get the OID of the variable but if
> > you are just looking at stuff in a dumb Notification viewer or
> > someone does not write their code terribly well, this can cause
> > confusion.
> 
> If the SMI allowed extra varbinds to be added to notification
> definitions, then you would be right, but in fact it does not do so.
> See section 10.3 of RFC 2578.  If such was done for the link up and
> link down traps then we broke out own rules.
> 
> //cmh
> 
>