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

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 09:26 PM 1/13/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>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.)

I agree.  The replacement text (option 2) looks good to me
for a fix to this problem.

<soapbox>
Why does it seem like every couple years the RMON WG pushes
the SNMP envelope, and keeps running into "CLR roadblocks"?
The standards are supposed to serve users, not the other
way around.  It seems to me that any effort spent
devising detailed rules around SMI usage (to prevent users
from "hurting themselves") is totally pointless, especially
in the absence of any real evidence of a problem to solve.
Here's a litmus test: What operational problems are being
solved by preventing somebody from defining a table of
accessible-for-notify objects?  Can't think of any?  Then 
lose the CLR!
</soapbox>


>> 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

Andy