RE: Notifications

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

so I guess (and I wondered) that "cab" means "can" :-)

> 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).
> 
OK, now your statement makes sense to me.

Bert
> //cmh
> 
>