[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-eos-snmp-rowops-00.txt

Robert Story wrote:
> At 5:25 PM -0700 5/1/01, Lauren Heintz wrote:
> >For a SetRow request, if the instancePart of a rowOp is the
> >same as any other rowOp in the same PDU, that is intended to
> >be an error.
> >
> I'm not sure I agree. If the instance part is the same, but the row is
> different (one table AUGMENTS the other), then they are setting different
> attributes of the same row, and thus I would think it would be common that
> they would be in the same PDU.  For the case of a simple index, the
> instance inheritance idea doesn't save space, but for longer indexes it
> would.

You're right.  What I meant to say was, if two identical
rowIdentifiers (where tablePart AND instancePart are both
the same) exist in the same SetRow request...an error occurs.

In the case of creating a row (foo) along with augmented
objects (fum), the tableParts are different so that's not an error
and works good.

> >  1.  GetRow (rowId1:foo.row1, op1A=fooInt, op1B=fooUnsigned32)
> >
> >and using your suggestion:
> >
> >  4.  GetRow (rowId1=foo.row1, op1A=fooInt, rowId2=1.0:1.0,
> >op2A=fooUnsigned32)
> >
> No, what I'm suggesting is that
> 1.GetRow(rowId1:foo.row1,op1A=fooInt,rowId2=fum.row1,op1B=fooUnsigned32)
> could be
> 4.GetRow(rowId1=foo.row1,op1A=fooInt, rowId2=fum.1.0,op1B=fooUnsigned32)
> >Besides I think the 1.0 cannot be distinguished
> >from actual instance values that may be in a vb.value (whereas
> >the 1.0 values in the vb.name can always be distinguished
> >from valid MIB objects).
> >
> That's a good point. How about
>       rowIdentifier = <vb.name=tableEntryPart,
>                        vb.type=NULL,
>                        vb.value=>

I understand, and agree this is a useful optimization.
Good idea.

Also, since the inheritance value for instanceParts would thus
be "NULL", I'm wondering if the inheritance OID for tableParts
should be the NULL OID (0.0) instead of 1.0?  I think I have
this as an issue in the appendix.  I think 0.0 works just as
well as 1.0 AND may be more intuitive?  Any opinions?

Thanks, Lauren