Re: snmpconf Comments on BCP-09

["Wayne F. Tackabury" <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:46 AM 8/5/2002 -0700, David T. Perkins wrote:



>There are a few concepts where we are way apart. If this was
>not a BCP, we could just "agree to disagree" and move on.

Well, not speaking to that here, but in the "glass may be half full" spirit...

A lot of your comments were about things you'd like to see in the 
MIB.  Aside from some things (only one point that really ended up being in 
your enumerated list as I recall) which we responded to with "this isn't a 
real HVAC MIB, but is used to demonstrate certain principles, so don't 
worry about it", we *attempted* to address all of them as I recall to a 
greater or lesser degree.  If we fell short of any there (for example, a 
different text you wanted to see on table and row objects in the 
DESCRIPTION clause comes to mind), maybe we can just get more 
clarification?  There wasn't anything we *objected* to including in those 
edits, maybe we just missed the mark and need to re-aim?

Of the non-MIB stuff, there were maybe five things (not looking at the 
list) that we did a "thanks, but no thanks" on in addressing the item in 
your list.  Now, only two of them *that I recall* (I'm in a bit of a hurry 
here, my numbers could be wrong) were substantial, the main one being that 
in general, you don't find INFORM REQUESTs that useful (forgive me if I'm 
characterizing it too strongly).  Given the experience of the authors, we 
may need a higher ruling on that one. The other was about authentication 
traps, and we actually emboldened our point to give it more credibility (by 
looking at it from another angle).

Unless I'm all wet because you have a variety of new issues here.  In any 
event, any wg chairs in the listening audience care to chime in here?

Regards,
Wayne