Re: Event MIB object handling - Issue 2

Hi -

> From: "Wes Hardaker" <[email protected]>
> To: "Benoit Claise" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Dave Shield" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Disman] Event MIB object handling - Issue 2
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 11:54:53 +0200, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> said:
>
> Benoit> As an editor, shall I simply modify the last sentence of the
> Benoit> mteObjectsEntry from "Those associated with a trigger come
> Benoit> first, then trigger test, then event." to "Those associated
> Benoit> with an event come first, then a trigger , then trigger
> Benoit> test."?  Feedback?  I'm sure some old timers on the list will
> Benoit> object is this is completely wrong :)
>
> I agree with Dave's analysis that the existing functionality is broken
> and needs to be fixed.  Thus I think this change is required.
>
> However, since it's likely a major change in functionality it will
> have to recycle at proposed?  However, I think it's worth doing in
> this case because the alternative is letting it go forward in a broken
> state that renders half the purpose of the MIB unusable in the way it
> should be used.
...

Where there is contradictory text, and we reconcile it so that one of the
interpretations still holds true without causing interoperability problems
for deployed implementations, in my opinion it's not a major change.

Where there is ambiguous text, and we remove the ambiguities
without causing interoperability problems for deployed implementations,
in my opinion it's not a major change.

It looks like the motivation was to make things more deterministic, but
that the added text was not sufficiently clear / precise / consistent.
Let's get it right, and then decide whether the fix requires cycling.

Randy