Subject: RE: alarmActiveState notification

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:53:08 -0400

hi

<Dave Partain>
I _entirely_ support Randy's suggestion.
</Dave Partain>

I knew I could count on you ;-). I think we'll
have to agree to disagree on the validity of that
particular SMI rule and take it up in SMIng.

<Dave Partain>
And, by the way, if the alarmModelTable is indexed by something
other than an empty alarmListName, they'll have to parse
something to get that out, or am I missing something?
</Dave Partain>
Good point. I'll mark this as issue #36. I'm still not convinced
the modelPointer is the best solution though.

Sharon

---

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:07:31 +0200

Hi Sharon!

On Wednesday 17 April 2002 14.53, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> I knew I could count on you ;-).

Always happy to fulfill my role :-)

> I think we'll

I agree completely.  If the SMI is changed, I'll be quiet.  I
promise :-)

> the modelPointer is the best solution though.

Does your answer mean that you'll remove the get-around-the-rules
hack?

Cheers,

dlp

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:33:25 +0200

>>>>> Sharon Chisholm writes:

Sharon> I knew I could count on you ;-). I think we'll have to agree
Sharon> to disagree on the validity of that particular SMI rule and
Sharon> take it up in SMIng.

But that won't change the SMIv2 rule and since you are writing an
SMIv2 MIB, ...

BTW, I agree with Randy and David (which probably does not surprise
you much. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>