RE: Notifications

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

ditto 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:27 AM
> To: 'C. M. Heard'; mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Notifications
> 
> > >>>>> 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
> > 
> > 
> 
>