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, 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.

I haven't heard any MIB Doctors speak up in favor of making this
change.

Based on that, I think I have to assume that we do not have
consensus to put it into the next spin of the document.

Mike