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

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

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:21
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Cc: Mark Ellison
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-08.txt]
> 
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> ...
> > > >    - 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"
> ...
> > personal opinion: I prefer to see the change.
> > If we agree (and I do) that that is what 2578 says/intends anyway
> > than better to make it explicit.
> 
> Hmm, RFC 2578 sec. 7.7 does allow for a row with all auxiliary
> objects to be defined, provided that one of those objects has a
> MAX-ACCESS value of read-only.  The above text says that this is
> not legal if the accessible column is referenced exclusively by
> notification definitions.  Sorry for not catching this before.
> 
> //cmh
> 
Let me retry. In sect 7.7 it syas:

  (2)  a conceptual row must contain at least one columnar object which is
       not an auxiliary object.  In the event that all of a conceptual
       row's columnar objects are also specified in its INDEX clause, then
       one of them must be accessible, i.e., have a MAX-ACCESS clause of
       "read-only". (Note that this situation does not arise for a
       conceptual row allowing create access, since such a row will have a
       status column which will not be an auxiliary object.)

The first sentence (in my view) says that a row can not be just auxiliary 
(so that is INDEX) objects with a MAX-ACCESS notaccessible. It MUST have at least
ONE non-auxiliar object. In my view, a MAX-ACCESS of accsible-for-notify meets
that requirement, no?

The next question would be if there were only INDEX columns if it would then be
OK to have one of the auxiliary (INDEX) columns to be accsible-for-notify.
I think the text uner (2) says (since it uses "i.e.") that that is not OK,
and that in that case the object should be read-only. The 2nd sentence in (2)
above states that (in my view).

Randy Presuhn suggested that we probably have intended that accisble-for-notify
was/is OK (in other words that we potentialy have meant "e.g." instead of "i.e.".
I personally agree with that.

The suggested addition to the mib-review-guidleines above may still not be clear
enough to also convey that last point (if we have consensus on that). And if
we indeed have consensus, we may even want to make that explicit.

Hope this explains my position.

Bert