Re: Event MIB object handling - Issue 2

Dear all,

>I've got another question relating to the Event-MIB, in particular
>the handling of the objects to be added to a notification payload.
>
>Should the objects listed in the mteObjectsTable cover *all*
>the varbinds for a particular notification, or just the "extra"
>ones not included in the NOTIFICATION-TYPE definition (with those
>being inserted automatically) ?
>  
>
There is not mention of in the draft. So If you set mteEventNotification 
to the OID of the linkDown, then I guess you will have to specify the { 
ifIndex, ifAdminStatus, ifOperStatus } yourself.
However, some more text would clarify the situation. The new text could 
take place in the mteEventNotification and/or "Operation" section.

>I've been assuming that this table should list everything
>(since the agent might not have access to the MIB definition).
>In which case I'm a little puzzled about the order in which
>the three mte{Trigger,TriggerXxx,EventNotification}Objects
>tags are applied.
>
>Naively, I'd expect that the mandatory notification objects
>would be closely linked with the notification itself, and hence
>be specified via the mteEventNotificationObjects tag, with the
>two trigger tags being used to add extra non-standard varbinds.
>Which would imply that the mteENObjects tag would have to be
>applied first.  And there's a note in the archives from Mike
>Daniele (<[email protected]> dated 02 Dec 1998)
>commenting on draft #05 which seems to suggest the same thing.
>  
>
It makes sense to me.
For everybody interest, see also 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/disman/current/msg00647.html for 
some clarifications.

>  But draft #06 introduces text in the mteObjectsIndex
>description which says:
>
>   Groups are placed in the notification in the order of the
>   selections for overall trigger, trigger test, and event.
>
>and this seems to have remained the same through into RFC
>2981 and the latest IDraft.  But I wasn't able to find an
>explanation of why this particular order was used, or any
>further discussion of this.
>
>Am I missing something obvious?
>  
>
As an editor, shall I simply modify the last sentence of the 
mteObjectsEntry from "Those associated with a trigger come first, then 
trigger test, then event." to "Those associated with an event come 
first, then a trigger , then trigger test."?
Feedback?
I'm sure some old timers on the list will object is this is completely 
wrong :)

Regards, Benoit.