RE: Notifications

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi Mike,

It's not about revising a notification definition (which is what section
10.3 is about). It's about appending "undeclared" varbinds to a
notification.

See RFC2578 section 8.1:
"Note that an agent is allowed, at its own discretion, to append as many
additional objects as it considers useful to the end of the notification
(i.e., after the objects defined by the OBJECTS clause)."

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:54 PM
> 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
> 
> 
>