RE: Notifications

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

>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
BW> Mike, sect 10.3 is about adding OBJECTS to the DEFINITION of a
BW> notification. My understanding was that we were talking about
BW> sect 8.1, last paragraph!

>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Harrington, David wrote:
DBH> It's not about revising a notification definition (which is
DBC> what section 10.3 is about). It's about appending "undeclared"
DBH > varbinds to a notification.
DBH> 
DBH> See RFC2578 section 8.1:
DBH> "Note that an agent is allowed, at its own discretion, to
DBH> append as many additional objects as it considers useful to
DBH> the end of the notification (i.e., after the objects defined
DBH> by the OBJECTS clause)."

Yes I know that.  But please read again _why_ Sharon found this
objectionable:

>>>>> At 01:04 PM 1/29/2004, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
SC> I've never viewed it as good practice. The problem is when that
SC> the SMI cab be updated to add extra varbinds as happens with
SC> linkUp and linkDown.

Unless I misunderstood what was being said, the last sentence above
seems to say that notification definitions can be updated to add
extra varbinds.  I was saying that this is not so (at least if we
follow the published SMI rules).

//cmh