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

RE: RowStatus versus RowState



Title: RE: RowStatus versus RowState

RowStatus will not be deprecated. It is proposed that new MIBs use the new RowState. This should provide the stability that you are looking for.

Cheers, /gww

-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:18
To: 'Ayers, Mike'; 'eos@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: RE: RowStatus versus RowState

Hi Mike,

Well, I certainly see utility in SNMP row operations.

But I also very much dislike introducing RowState and deprecating
RowStatus.  Apart from IETF developed MIBs a very large number of
enterprise MIBs are using RowStatus.  This is an SNMP stability
issue.

What are the compelling reasons to abandon RowStatus, please?

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Sharp and Xerox
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Ayers, Mike [mailto:Mike_Ayers@bmc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:31 PM
To: 'eos@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: RE: RowStatus versus RowState



> From: Sharon Chisholm [mailto:schishol@nortelnetworks.com]

> The rowops draft says that the intention is to replace RowStatus with
> RowState, but that RowStatus is not being deprecated.  I think this
> is a bit ambiguous.

        It's worse than that.  The current intention appears to be to have
RowState do only part of the job.  Specifically, there has been, both in the
rowops draft and in the proposed row ops requirements, text that claims that
"state and fate" are separable entities.  Really, all that has been done is
that half of the RowStatus values have been converted to "rowops" and the
timeout on notReady has been removed - presto chango!

        What is probably more iomportant at this point is to make progress
on the requirements so that we can determine what problem, if any, we are
trying to solve.  I still fail to see any point to rowops.


/|/|ike