RE: Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)

Thanks, 

I though it was a either StorageType support or capabilities.
I see how the combination of both StorageType and Capabilities in RFC
3434 defines all options with the advantage of a short COMPLIANCE
statement.

Although the solution work, I see more (theoretical) advantages in the
AGENT-CAPABILITIES variation if broadly adopted and implemented ( I
doubt not) to solve the problem at the class (SMI) level rather than at
the managed object level. I mean  supporting VARIATION clauses that
update dynamically the Device profile Object model and operations to
execute (expose) rather than having the management application writing
code on a MIB table basis to discover them. 

It is not fat to be a trade-off dilemma

I will try to came up with a revision of the proposed changes based on
all the feedback.

If anyone else has comments, please post the list
 

Eduardo     



-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 11:17 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ipcdn] Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)


Hi -

> From: "Eduardo Cardona" <[email protected]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:32 AM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)

... (lots of agreement, questions to the WG, and explanations deleted)
...

>> There is no need for there to be any writeable objects in a table 
>> with a StorageType object.  One could also use a "capabilities" 
>> object outside the table to report whether this information can be 
>> retained. For an example of total over-engineering, one could have a 
>> single read-only BITS object with one bit for each of these tables, 
>> reporting whether the implementation maintains the data persistently.
> <edo1>
> Any example or I assume all new MIB designs consider the StorageType 
> by default.
>
> </edo1>
...

The work with which I am most familiar has been very explicit about
persistence, either mandating it in DESCRIPTIONs or using StorageType to
report / control it as needed.  However, using a scalar to report
capabilities, including persistance behaviour, has a long history,
especially in the rmonmib working group.  For an example chosen at
random, see "hcAlarmCapabilities" in RFC 3434.

Randy



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