RE: RAQMON Trap PDU size and report transmission time

RAQMON PDU draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-pdu-09.txt

Data Source Name (DN) 
Receiver Name (RN):
Session Setup Date/Time (NTP timestamp) 

contains text starting at page 8 in syntax.
May be we should repeat the same text in the SNMP section.

Thanks
Anwar





-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:11 PM
To: Siddiqui, Anwar A (Anwar)
Cc: Andy Bierman; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] RAQMON Trap PDU size and report transmission time

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:01:40AM -0500, Siddiqui, Anwar A (Anwar)
wrote:

> This represents a "worst case" analysis. There is no doubt we need to
> accommodate for the "worst case" but thought I would point out that
> 
> a. In your analysis you assumed static parameters such as name and
> address etc. are reported in every PDU which will be simply a bad
> implementation and there is text that says one should avoid exactly
> that.
> 
> b. "ALL" dynamic parameters are reported as well which is bit unusual
> since NOT all APPLICATION will use all parameters to describe their
> sessions.
> 
> So if you do NOT compute the static parameters, the scenario over SNMP
> is not that scary!

So where is the text which says which objects go into which
notification? If this decision is left to the implementor, we better
expect the worst case to happen...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
Germany