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

Re: Schedule MIB enhancements (Was: Re: snmpconf Interim MeetingNotes Day Two)



on 09/12/2000 12:45 PM, Randy Presuhn at rpresuhn@dorothy.peer.com wrote:

> If there are to be proposed changes to the schedule MIB, please
> make those proposals NOW.  The WG last call on this document was
> to have ended months ago, and it's just been a matter of editor
> availability that's kept this from being handed to the AD for
> presentation to the IESG.  If changes are necessary, please
> spell them out now.

Randy and Juergen,

Hongal had been pursuing this issue and we talked a bit about it at the IETF
meeting. I do not think there is consensus yet.

>From the posted minutes, there were the following relevant points:

> .  When using the schedule MIB, you would need to create a MIB entry
> that would point back to the entry that would be started.
> Actually you would need two entries in the schedule MIB one for starting
> (setting the admin status to enable) and one for stopping
> (setting the admin status to disable).  We may be able
> to add an augments clause to the schedule MIB to pack the
> information into one entry.
> 
> .  One needs to make sure that the forward and backward pointers
> stay in sync.  To do this, there should be a one-to-one pairing.
> Have two schedule entries pointing to one ifAdminStatus would be
> difficult to maintain.
> 
> .  If we use the schedule MIB, we need to bear in mind that it has
> up to one minute latency after one presses the go button.
> 
> In summary, we are talking about augmenting the schedule MIB so
> that we have the start and stop times rather than having multiple
> entries.  This is a proposed change.


You will note from David Partain's note that he is organizing our list of
issues and actions. I can ask that we get to this ASAP by can not promise a
specific resolution in a specific time.  That said, we have the following
choices. If time pressure makes it right to move forward with the Schedule
MIB then, we will have to work out some other solution. If it is possible to
wait until we conclude our interim meeting and post to the mail list, then
we might get good input to your effort.

Folks, Randy and Juergen have a point about the disman work. When we bring
these topics up on this [snmpconf] list we should be sure to cross post them
to the disman group.

Thanks
/jon