RE: TimeFilter edits

Hi,

I think the Proposed New text for sec 8, sec. 1.1, after last para: 
would benefit from a discussion of the behavior that may be observed
if the traditional implementation is followed. 
This would help people understand why they are seeing this unusual
behavior on tables with TimeFilter objects, and provide guidance about
how to change their implementation to not manifest this behavior, if
so desired.

I suggest appending the following, from archive message #762, to the
second paragrapgh of the proposed text:

"A getNext or getBulk MIB walk will repeat through the same MIB table
until
         the TimeMark for the most-recently changed entry is reached.
         Note that as long as traffic occurs on the monitored
interface,
         it is possible a highest value of the TimeFilter INDEX may
         never be reached. This mode is strictly compliant with the
         TimeFilter textual convention definition.  Note that GetBulk
         PDU responses in this mode will likely contain multiple
copies
         of the same MIB instances, differing only in the TimeMark
INDEX
         value. "

Thanks,
David Harrington
[email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 7:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [RMONMIB] TimeFilter edits
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The attached file contains proposed edits for the TimeFilter 
> TC and Appendix.  Please send comments to the list ASAP so Steve
> can update the RFC2021-bis draft.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Andy
>