Subject: RE: [Disman] ResourceID TC in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:24:02 -0400

Hi

When someone builds a 'do over' machine, the inaccessibility of table
indices is definitely on my 'to do' list.

The following is the proposed resolution to Randy-43. Assuming no objection,
this item will be considered closed conditional on the proposed edit being
done.

In the definition of ResourceId, replace

"               For example, if this resource is an interface, this
               object MUST point to an ifIndex and if this resource
               is a physical entity, then this MUST point to an
               entPhysicalIndex. In general, pointing to objects that
               act as index into an IETF MIB tables for the resource
               will provide the most consistency."

With

"               For example, if this resource is an interface, this
               object MUST point to an ifIndex and if this resource
               is a physical entity, then this MUST point to an
               entPhysicalDescr, given that entPhysicalIndex is not 
               accessible. In general, the value is the
               name of the instance of the first accessible columnar 
		   object in the conceptual row of a table that is 
               meaningful for this resource type, which SHOULD 
		   be defined in an IETF standard MIB."

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:51 PM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: [Disman] ResourceID TC in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi -

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Randy Presuhn" 
> <[email-masked]>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)"
<[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 7:34 AM
> Subject: [Disman] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-14.txt

...
> 43) page 15 (ResourceId):  I agree with the intent of the last
>     sentence in the description, but if there is a MUST requirement
>     here, how do we ensure that implementations know what to choose
>     for any arbitrary table?
>
> Sharon -> I added this, but I probably should not have. I guess we can 
> consider it clarifying editorial in nature.
...

What's there now is (still) problematic.  Specifically:

               For example, if this resource is an interface, this
               object MUST point to an ifIndex and if this resource
               is a physical entity, then this MUST point to an
               entPhysicalIndex. In general, pointing to objects that
               act as index into an IETF MIB tables for the resource
               will provide the most consistency."

I see two problems:
    1) entPhysicalIndex is not-accessible
    2) no guidance is given as to which element of a row should be chosen

I suggest borrowing from the description of RowPointer in RFC 2579.

Randy

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:24:02 -0400

Hi

With

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:51 PM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: [Disman] ResourceID TC in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi -

<[email-masked]>

...
...

I see two problems:

Randy