RE: [RMONMIB] TimeFilter text (summary for review)

["David B Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>]

Hi,

Thank you for the text. It will be very helpful having this written
down.

I suggest dropping the clause in 1.2 "because no PDU transactions are
saved." The sentence without this clause is adequate to make the
point.
The following sentence mentions (SNMPv1c) - should this be SNMPv2c?
'noSuchInstance' also applies to SNMPv3, doesn't it?

I suggest changing 
"Either the current time-filtered
object-value is returned, or a 'noSuchInstance' exception
(SNMPv1c) or 'noSuchName' error (SNMPv1) is returned."
To:
"Either the current time-filtered object-value is returned, or, if
there is no time-filtered object-value instance, then a
'noSuchInstance' exception
(SNMPv2c or SNMPv3) or 'noSuchName' error (SNMPv1) is returned."

The sentence "If GetBulk PDUs are used, then the value selected for
response
PDUs generated by the agent, since duplicate entries (one per
'tick' of sysUpTime) are likely to pad the PDU to its maximum
size." 
seems malformed. Would this be better?
"In Response-PDUs for GetBulk requests, duplicate entries (one per
'tick' of sysUpTime) are likely to pad the PDU to its maximum
size."

Should "are likely to" be changed to MAY? 

The sentence starting "An appropriate of" also seems malformed. 
Is this sentence needed? Doesn't "pad to its maximum size" already
cover this?

In the example, you only show the effect of value modification. While
a simple example is nice, it doesn't prepare users for the anomalies
that occur in a dynamic table. I suggest creating a third row, then
craeting and deleting a column in the row, and then deleting the row
to show how those would impact the agent and NMS when using SNMPv3:

(I don't have an implementation to use to sanity check my examples;
please correct as needed)

[start example changes]

   Row 3 was updated as follows:
       SysUpTime    fooCounts.*.3 value
           500           noSuchInstance  #row 3 created with no
fooCounts object 
           900           1               #fooCounts column created
          1400           noSuchInstance  #fooCoun3s column deleted
          2400           noSuchInstance  #row 3 deleted
   
(in each getbulk request, maxReps need to be changed to 3)       
   Time nms-1000:
          fooCounts.0.3 == noSuchInstance  # visible; row created
since time 0 
                                           # no fooCounts object
   Time nms-2500:
           fooCounts.600.3 == 1            # fooCounts column created
at time 900
   Time nms-4000:
           fooCounts.2100.3 == noSuchInstance  # fooCounts column
deleted
   Time nms-5500:  
                                           # row 3 deleted

   Time agt-0:
                                      #<row 3 doesn't exist>
   Time agt-500:
      fooCounts.3 = noSuchInstance; changed.3 = 500; #row 3 exists, no
fooCounts
   Time agt-600:
      # return three counters, with an exception for fooCounts.3
   Time agt-900:
      fooCounts.3 = 1; changed.3 = 900; # fooCounts.3 created
   Time agt-1400:
      fooCounts.3 = noSuchInstance; changed.3 = 1400;
   Time agt-2100:
      # return three counters, with an exception for fooCounts.3
   Time agt-3600:
         # return only fooCounts.1 from the fooTable--three times
   Time agt-5100:
       # return lexigraphically-next three MIB instances

[end example changes]

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rmonmib-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:rmonmib-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:33 AM
> To: rmonmib@ietf.org
> Cc: Mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: [RMONMIB] TimeFilter text (summary for review)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We need to finish up the TimeFilter discussions so RMON-2 can
> be republished, so that documents waiting for RFC 2021-bis can
> move along.
> 
> Attached is the proposed TimeFilter TC (para 1) and complete
> appendix section.  Please send any comments to the list ASAP,
> otherwise we will use this text in the next draft.
> 
> thanks,
> Andy
>