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

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

Can you calrify point 4) ??

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of David T. Perkins
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 03:59
> To: C. M. Heard
> Cc: Mark Ellison; Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]
> 
> 
> HI,
> 
> It seems like I've been waging a one person battle
> on the misuse of "accessible-for-notify". I guess
> I just need to write an informational RFC and then
> just move on. In general, I believe that MIB designers
> are trying to create new control (signalling) protocols
> out of SNMP. There are many problems with notifications
> in SNMP, including:
>  1) flow control
>  2) lack of concern and coping with  dropped or
>      suppressed notifications
>  3) different "authEngineID" values for traps
>      and informs when using USM
>  4) "missing" objects for USM engine boots and time
>      for "remote" engines
>  5) lack of a usable log (RFC 3014 doesn't cut it)
>  etc
> 
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins
> 
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, C. M. Heard wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
>