Re: WG last call: Coex draft
Michael Kirkham <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.snmpv3 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, C. M. Heard wrote: > 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. If that's the basis for it, then shouldn't the behavior depend on whether or not that Counter64 object is one that is required by the notification definition, versus one that has been added by the implementation? This would, I suppose, assume that the proxy has knowledge of the notification definition. -- Michael Kirkham www.muonics.com