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

RE: Error Feedback



hi

This post bounced this morning since I got removed
from the mailing list at some point.

A big thanks to Randy Bush for helping debug the
situation ...

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:NM50:EXCH] 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 8:21 AM
To: eos@ops.ietf.org; 'sidney.antommarchi@tekelec.com'
Subject: RE: Error Feedback


hi

Currently no one is editing RFC1905. I started to capture
some of these things in the extended protocol MIB ID, and
if there is interest, I can release an update to the ID.

I do agree that if we are improving error messages, we want
to avoid human-only readable objects like display strings.
Enumerated integers that could optionally be mapped to 
human-readable text seem to be the best way to improve error
messages.

The accessible-for-response idea seems too expensive when
looking at current protocol operations. It might fare
better if applied specifically to one of the new PDUs,
like simplified sets.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: sidney.antommarchi@tekelec.com
[mailto:sidney.antommarchi@tekelec.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:02 AM
To: eos@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Error Feedback


As per my 8/29/1 email, A more friendly approach would be:

> Another solution would be to have user defined objects classified with
> accessible-for-response (like accessible-for-notify).  The protocol would
> need to be relaxed to allow these new objects to be passed back along
with
> a Response PDU.

Sidney Antommarchi
VXi - Systems Engineering
972-301-1258