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

RE: Open/Closed Issues on SNMP Extended Protocol MIB


I suspect that rowState is tied too closely with
row operations to be put into the SnmpXproto MIB.

If we feel that the rowOps document is starting to bloat, 
perhaps a logical break in the documents would look more like
	- SNMP Extended Protocol MIB
		- Framework & Capabilities
      - Protocol Operations for the Evolution of SNMP 
	  - new protocol stuff common to both scalar and
	    row operations
	  - efficiency
	- Row Operations using New PDU Definitions.
		- the details on simplified row operations
		- include RowState.

Hmm.  Why does this sound familiar ;-)?


-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren Heintz [mailto:lheintz@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:00 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K32:EXCH]
Cc: 'eos@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: Re: Open/Closed Issues on SNMP Extended Protocol MIB


What do you think of the idea to have
one EOS document only provide all
the necessary MIB defs instead of having
them distributed in differing EOS modules/documents?

Would the RowState TC (if we keep it)
stick out like a sore thumb if it were
instead in your MIB?

I'd assume the new proto-op defs would
remain in the rowOps document.

Thanks, Lauren

Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> hi
> I'm getting ready to publish the next version of the
> draft-ietf-eos-snmpxproto-mib-00.txt ID and I just
> wanted to make sure I'd captured all the issues.
> Closed:
> 1. Vendor extensions will be removed
> Previously closed, perhaps needs to be re-opened:
> 2. We will not be providing a mechanism to optionally
>    indicate functionality beyond snmpXProtoStandard
>    for a sub-tree. (subAgent)
> 3. We will require support of protocol operations as
>    defined in RFC1905.
> Sharon Chisholm
> Preside Management
> Nortel Networks
> Ottawa, Ontario