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

Re: RowStatus questions



At 09:40 PM 5/9/2002, Wes Hardaker wrote:

>Ok, so lets say you're writing a MIB today (many of us are).  Everyone
>supposedly hates RowStatus, but the primary reason is the
>create-and-wait state.
>
>So, if you were writing a (standards-based) MIB what would you do
>given todays choices:
>
>1) use RowStatus as is, since it's still the currently accepted method.
>2) Make something up for the MIB (ick).
>3) use new not-yet standardized ideas (eos-rowops, being one example).
>   [this isn't really an option of course, since I expect my draft to
>    go to proposed before the eos is done debating this issue, and I
>    can't wait (let alone wait for new deployment of protocol code)]
>4) use RowStatus but in the compliance statements specify that the
>   createAndWait enum value isn't required.
>5) ???

I think (4) is a reasonable approach if:
 a) all possible creation values for the all writable columns can
    fit in a 1500 byte packet
 b) there are no cascading tables (like RMON2 usrHistory) that 
    need to be configured before the row can be activated

These conditions are true for most tables.

(BTW, I think RowStatus should be dumped in favor of real create, edit,
and delete protocol operations, but that's another thread... ;-)

Andy

>-- 
>"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will
> insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."   -- Terry Pratchett