Subject: Re-open Log MIB for performance?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:20:08 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:20:37 -0800
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Proposed disman charter addition: alarm tracking
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> List-Id: IETF disman Working Group mailing list <[email-masked]>
...
> Additionally, the approach that is used to implement a union,
> which is a reuse of a design pattern used in other disman MIB
> modules, has very bad performance characteristics for bulk
> retrieval. I believe that after an IETF standards track alarm
> MIB module is defined (and the definition allows highly efficient
> implementation on an agent system AND low cost useage by management
> applications), then this will be the most useful and widely
> implemented set of objects!
...

Others in this thread have offered a couple of different
ways to improve performance, at the cost of compatibility
with the existing log MIB in RFC 3014, currently at proposed.

As some of you may remember, I have repeatedly stated that
I would rule arguments based solely on "progression" of
specifications out of order.  If we are finding that the
structure of the log MIB in RFC 3014 is causing serious
efficiency problems, then we should fix it and cycle it at
"proposed", rather than blindly progressing it and inflicting
its shortcomings on other specifications.

So, as chair I ask the WG: do we need to re-open the log MIB
to do alarming right?

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]
 Voice: +1 408 546-1006  BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 Fax:   +1 408 965-0359  2141 North First Street
 http://www.bmc.com/     San José, California 95131  USA
 -------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 -------------------------------------------------------