Re: looking for advise on RFC-2618 and 2620

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:48:09PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > 
> > RADIUS can hardly be the only potentially distributed 
> > application with this problem.  Perhaps mib-doctors can be 
> > asked how others have solved it, or determined that such 
> > internal issues must be kept hidden.
> 
> Hiding is certainly not good. Counter discontinuity objects should be
> defined when discontinuities happen at other time than
> re-initialization, as per RFC 2578, Sections 7.1.6 and 7.1.10 and RFC
> 4181 Section 4.6.1.2. The granularity of the discontinuity objects
> (global, per table, per row) is a function of whether discontinuities
> happen globally, or per interface, etc. 

Not to be tedious, but I was hardly suggesting that entities lie about
discontinuities.  Rather, perhaps by using a buddy system or a central
collection point, avoid them.  The issue is the extent to which outside
entities need to be aware of the distributed nature of some managed
entity, or whether the entity should take pains to present a unitary
appearance to the world.  There seems to be little stylistic guidance
on this point, which becomes ever more relevant.  Your last sentence
gives fine guidance for a vendor MIB on a particular design, but not,
I submit, for a standard.

Barney Wolff

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>