RE: EFM OAM MIB and the DateAndTime TC

 
Hi Chris - 
 
Your question on what to do with timestamps for systems that don't have date/time hasn't been discussed in context of this MIB draft, so I'd like to see what others think.  It doesn't appear to be covered by the textual conventions doc, so I'm guessing that means its open to interpretation.  
 
You point out that there is some precedent for returning zeros, or returning a date/time approximation based on sysUpTime.  It seems that from a utility point of view the latter approach is better as relative times are preserved, but the first approach is certainly simpler and easier to document.  A third approach would be to change from DateAndTime to use sysUpTime instead for the timestamps.  Although this would solve the "what to do if you don't know the date/time" problem, it would create extra work on those systems that do have date/time (assuming most people want timestamps in the date/time  format).  
 
Maybe some others can shed some light/opinions on the subject of how to handle date/time when it is not available on the system. 
 
- Matt
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Leak [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:56 PM
To: Matt Squire
Cc: Don Kate; Manu Kaycee
Subject: EFM OAM MIB and the DateAndTime TC



Matt,

 

Has there been any discussion regarding the implementation of the dot3OamEventLogTimestamp object on systems where the date and time are not available? I've seen examples of some MIBs on the standards track where the value '0000000000000000'H is recommended in this case and one example where sysUpTime was converted into a date and time. So far, this seems to be an issue that's being addressed on a case by case basis. Any suggestions?

 

Thanks,

 

Chris Leak

Senior Software Engineer

Metrobility Optical Systems

[email protected]

(603) 589-0681

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib