RE: Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Randy,

Thanks and no, I did not miss your response. However, the MIB is geared
towards 'management events' (and their management) and the resulting
'notifications' are only a reporting feature. Thus, MTAs are required
to:
- store all relevant event information in the logs (storage allowing)
- send only critical (or desired) notifications, created upon event
generation to the external systems (syslog, SNMP)

Now, implementations could, as you suggested, have notifications
generated agnostic of the destination. 
However, in this case, the 'event generation and storage' is required
(it may overwrite earlier events, but current events are always stored),
with an option to convert them into 'notifications', if configured. 

Further, given the disparity between the Service Provider Network
elements (few) and the clients on which this MIB will be
implemented(many), the throttling requirements for 'notifications sent
to the network' were imposed. Currently, there has been no intention or
requirement to throttle events that can be stored locally.

Thanks for the pointer on RFC3014 - I shall take a look at it and see if
we can borrow any concepts.

Greg,
Barring the max size discussion (I should have clarified further, thanks
Eduardo), do we really see a need for throttling local events (would it
serve any purpose if the latest events are always stored)?
 

- S



-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Hi -

> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on 
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
...
> I haven't received any comments on the clarifications requested (dated

> 10/07, enclosed in this email). Can I assume acceptance (status quo) 
> on
> #1 and #2? 

You must have missed my response from two months ago:

|From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
|Of Randy Presuhn
|Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:59 PM
|To: [email protected]
|Subject: Re: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
|
|Hi -
|
|> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email protected]>
|> To: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email protected]>; "Nakanishi 
|> Greg-MGI8179" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
|> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:46 AM
|> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on
|> draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
|...
|> 8) pktcDevEvThrottleAdminStatus
|> - The description makes mention of throttling events using SNMP and 
|> Syslog.  What about the local log?  Are events written to the local 
|> log not subject to throttling?
|...
|
|I'd suggest that if we don't leave it up to the implementation, that it

|would be best for throttling to affect all destinations equally.  
|Swamped logs are the same kind of problem, whether on the local system
or a remote one.
|
|Randy

The code issuing a notification, which is where the DESCRIPTION clause
would lead implementors to put the throttling logic, would in a
reasonably modular environment have no knowledge of whether it is going
to a local log, delivery over some protocol, or whatever.

Randy


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