Re: changes to ping MIB conformance material

Randy,

--On 06.10.2004 10:30 Uhr -0700 Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Hi -
>
>> From: "Juergen Quittek" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:47 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material
> ...
>> OK, I will insert the old groups and the compliance statements for all
>> three MIB modules.
>>
>> As their new status I prefer "deprecated".  Any objections?
> ...
>
> I understand why the new "minimal conformance" material was added.
> Could someone remind me why the old material would need to
> be deprecated?

You'll find the discussion in the messages we exchanged on the
list in early July.

We split the pingGroup into the pingMinimumGroup and the
pingCtlRowStatusGroup, because we wanted to have the
pingCtlRowStatus optional in the minimumCompliancy.

Furthermore, we had different compliancy constraints for
the two members pingResultsLastGoodProbe and
pingProbeHistoryTime of the pingTimeStampGroup and gave up
this group.

In order to use the same groups in both compliancy
statements (full and minimum), we replaced pingCompliancy
by pingFullCompliancy.  This lead to a clean definition,
but probably it is not good considering the existing
implementations referencing RFC 2925.

pingCompliancy and pingFullCompliancy are semantically almost
identical. The only difference concerns object
pingProbeHistoryTime.

We could also stick with the compliancy definitions of RFC 2925
and use different groups for the new minimumCompliancy.

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email protected]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de