[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Protocol operations proposal deadline
> I think there's an incorrect assumption that added new
> protocol operations via varbinds is somehow going to make
> the (agent and NMS) code design easier than adding a
> new message wrapper or PDU types.
Well, that was certainly my experience when actually coding this.
I didn't need to write new parsing routines to handle a new format,
and adding in a bit of option extraction/insertion code *was*
easier than writing message/PDU parsing routines would have been.
> What happens if the VACM config eliminates these fields
> from view in the response PDU and the command generator
> can't tell which option requests were granted?
I'd expect that the PDU parsing code would remove these varbinds
from the list, long before they got anywhere near the VACM handling.
Even if the VACM code were invoked immediately after decoding each
individual varbind, the check for capability signalling OIDs could
be inserted between the two.
I think you're being unduly pessimistic here.
> I think it's cleaner to keep meta-data out of the varbind list.
That's fair comment - both from you and from others.
I'd have to agree - if adopting an alternative PDU format made this
mechanism unnecessary, then it would probably be cleaner to do so.
A similar comment would probably apply to my later proposal regarding
extended error reporting.