Subject: Description for object alarmModelVarbindIndex

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:47:32 -0700

HI,

In the 06 draft of the alarm MIB, the text in the DESCRIPTION
clause for object alarmModelVarbindIndex needs to be corrected.
It confuses the SNMP operations with the SMI. It currently reads...

           "The index into the varbind listing of the notification
           indicated by alarmModelNotificationId which helps
           signal that the given alarm has changed state.
           If there is no applicable varbind, the value of this
           object MUST be zero.

           For SNMPv1 traps, a 1 indicates the first varbind. For
           NOTIFICATION-TYPE, a 1 indicates the first real varbind
           after the required varbinds of sysUptime and SNMPTrapOID."

And should be changed to...
           "The index into the varbind listing of the notification
           indicated by alarmModelNotificationId which helps
           signal that the given alarm has changed state.
           If there is no applicable varbind, the value of this
           object MUST be zero.

           For v1Traps, a 1 indicates the first varbind. For
           v2Traps and Informs, a 1 indicates the first varbind
           after the required varbinds of sysUptime and SNMPTrapOID."

Regards,
/david t. perkins

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:35:48 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:47:32 -0700
> To: [email-masked]
> From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Description for object alarmModelVarbindIndex
...
>            after the required varbinds of sysUptime and SNMPTrapOID."
...

As a technical contributor, I agree with the rationale, but
would prefer a slightly different solution.  Specifically,
I'd like to see notifications, regardless of the protocols
(remember, these things may have "arrived" over SMUX, AgentX,
or any number of proprietary mechanisms) treated *as though*
they were v2, in accordance with the philosophy/rules in
RFC 2576.  I think this would ultimately simplify things for
both the manager and for the agent infrastructure, since the
same transformations are necessary for RFC 2573 notification
forwarding / filtering and for access control to work anyway.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 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.
 ------------------------------------------------------