Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]

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

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Mark Ellison wrote:
> > Here's the suggested text (corrected):
> >
> >    - For conceptual rows used exclusively for defining objects
> >    referenced by notification definitions:
> >
> >        - At least one non-auxiliary object must be defined with
> >        a MAX-ACCESS of (at least) "accessible-for-notify"

I don't have an issue with including this text if the other MIB
Doctors agree.  I don't think it says anything different from what
is in RFC 2578, but when running some test cases I did notice that
an old version of SMICng complained about "accessible-for-notify"
objects in tables:

E: f(xx.mi2), (2089,1) Row "xxxEntry" may not object with status of
"accessible-for-notify" defined under it
E: f(xx.mi2), (2122,1) Item "xxxNearFarFlag" has invalid value for
max-access

So maybe adding some text to cover this point is worhtwhile.

MIB Doctor comments, please.

//cmh