Re: WG last call: Coex draft

Thanks Mike,

This is what I had missed.  I appreciate your help!

Regards,

Mark

"C. M. Heard" wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Mark Ellison wrote:
> > "C. M. Heard" wrote:
> > > It's true that rfc 2576 and the current coex draft don't handle
> > > notifications with Counter64 variables in them in the same way
> > > as did rfc 2089, but that was a deliberate change.
> ...
> > What I'm unable to find is a trail of this deliberate change.
> [ ... ]
> > [I]n coex-04 (~may-21-1999) the language in relevant section (3.2)
> > was changed to specify the notification cannot be sent using SNMPv1.
> >
> > I'm unable to find any thread in my SNMPv3 email archive discussing the
> > change reflected in coex-04, nor did I see anything in the minutes from
> > Orlando or Minnesota WG meetings discussing the change reflected in
> > coex-04.
>
> It's well-hidden, but it's in the IETF March 1999 Proceedings at the
> SNMPv3 WG minutes for the IETF-44 meeting in Minneapolis.  It says:
>
>    [ ... ] we decided to follow standard not-in-view procedure and
>    drop notifications going out as SNMPv1 but coming in with Counter64.
>
> Notice that this is in line with what would happen in a pure SNMPv3
> environment:  a notification is not sent to a given target if any
> of the mandatory varbinds would be out-of-view for that target.  There
> is a good reason for doing this:  a notification definition (whether
> specified by an SMIv2 NOTIFICATION-TYPE or an SMIv1 TRAP-TYPE
> definition) lists mandatory varbinds that a notification receiver
> can always expect to receive.  Selectively stripping away out-of-view
> varbinds as specified in rfc 2089 would violate that contract.
>
> //cmh