Subject: proposed nlmLogEngineID clarification

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:07:42 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

The objects nlmLogEngineID and nlmLogContextEngineID
in RFC 3014 have caused some confusion.  As a technical
contributor, I'd like to propose the following clarification
for nlmLogEngineID:

nlmLogEngineID OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX      SnmpEngineID
    MAX-ACCESS  read-only
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
     "If the Notification was received in a protocol which carries
      information corresponding to the msgAuthoritativeEngineID
      element in RFC 2574, this object has that value.
      Otherwise its value is a zero-length string."

      If the log can contain Notifications from only one engine or
      the Notification did not contain information corresponding
      to the msgAuthoritativeEngineID of RFC 2574, this object's
      value is a zero-length string."
    ::= { nlmLogEntry 4 }

There was a fair amount of discussion on the snmpv3 list recently
about exactly what this value would be.  In light of that discussion,
is this object still worth implementing?  If not, should we
deprecate or even obsolete it?

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ramanathan Kavasseri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:23:05 -0800

Didn't see any responses to this. Should this object be deprecated?

Ram

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 18:44:09 -0800

HI,

Why would one want this? And what would they use it for?

Regards,
/david t. perkins