Re: Call for censensus on path forward

Wes Hardaker wrote:

> >>>>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:52:41 -0400, Mark Ellison <[email protected]> said:
>
> [deletions]
>
> Mark> Filtering might also include a means to selectively omit certain
> Mark> components of an object (resp.  certain columns of a row) from
> Mark> the response PDU. so that applications may omit the attributes
> Mark> from the response for which no interest exists.
>
> You mean that certain columns would be in some row responses but not
> others depending on a filter?  IE, "give me ifAdminStatus on every
> interface, but also give me ifInOctets and ifOutOctets if
> ifAdminStatus is up"?  If so, I think that would be rather complex and
> is pushing farther into the area that I question whether it would
> result in interoperability problems since the packet structure
> returned would be variable on a per-row basis.

I was thinking of something more along the lines this:

(1) Select an object based upon the filtering described in oops-01
(2) apply the attibute/column filter before packing into the response.  Send along
only the set of object attributes requested for each (and every) object of a given
object-type selected by (1) within a PDU instead of the set of all attributes for
each object.

This method would need to be estensible for sub-objects...but hopefully that
describes what I have in mind somewhat better?  Have I missed a piece of the draft
on this?


>
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> Network Associates Laboratories

Regards,

Mark Ellison
Ellison Software Consulting, Inc.