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

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
> To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
> Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>; "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>; "Mark Ellison" <ellison@ieee.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RMONMIB] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu- 08.txt]
...
> This discussion goes back to why "accessible-for-notify" was added
> in the first place. It was added after an interim meeting near
> the DFW airport in the early 1990's.
>
> I believe it's meaning and use has changed.

I was there.  I don't see how the meaning has changed.
I don't see how the use has changed.

> If so, saying there is an i.e./e.g. error would be incorrect.

One could also see the i.e. as a "phase error", that is, something
that wasn't updated when "accessible-for-notify" was added.
These rules about the accessiblility of indexes were motivated
at that time by the perception that permitting access to indexes
contributed to inefficiency on the part of mindless MIB browsers.
(As far as code generators are concerned, the savings are really
minimal, since internal access methods are still needed for the
index attributes.)

> Instead, just call it for what it is....
> The SNMP community has found a change in meaning useful,
> and has been using a practice that differs from the
> document. The SMI is being updated to reflect the
> existing practice.
...

I don't see what this "change in meaning" is.  Could you explain?

Randy