Re: use of OBJECT-IDENTITY

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

The use of the OBJECT-IDENTITY construct doesn't bother me.

However, there are several other design choices that do bother
me, including:
  1) "relaxed" usage of the term MIB (it's just sloppy).
     Term "MIB tree" is just wrong.
  2) use of counter64 instead of counter32, or is the current
     approach changed to always use counter64 so you do not
     have to be concerned of counter rollover?
  3) use of "accessible-for-notify". There should be little, if
     any, use of this max-access value. The problem is that
     notifications cannot be guaranteed to be delivered,
     and if the MIB model design is based-on management info
     being available only via notifications, then there will
     be times when needed info is not available.
  4) indexing, number of instances, and relationships between
     tables is not immediately obvious nor fully described.
     In each table description, there MUST be a sentence or
     two that provides the reader a clue to the number of
     instances in the table. This could be as simple as
     saying the number corresponded to the number of a
     specific type of physical components. Or this could
     correspond to the number of instances in another table.
     Or it could be the number of "provisioned" entries of
     some logical resource. In addition, the DESCRIPTION
     clause for rows MUST indicate if row creation is allow
     or not, if so, then details.
  5) There are no objects with access of read-create or read-write.
     This seems VERY strange.
     
PS  Have you looked at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yadawad-disman-ahcf-00.txt. It does some creative (not quite valid) things.

At 04:44 PM 3/17/2004 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>In draft-ietf-dhc-server-mib-10.txt I see the use of
>OBJECT-IDENTITY that I think was not intended.
>
>Comments?
>
>Thanks,
>Bert 
Regards,
/david t. perkins