Subject: RE: [Disman] alarmModelRowStatus

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:10:55 -0400

Hi

We have a proposed resolution to Randy-49 - since all objects in the table
have default values, no further changes are required.

Objections?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:51 AM
To: Randy Presuhn; Disman (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [Disman] alarmModelRowStatus

> > 49) alarmModelRowStatus should spell out that the
> >     alarmModelVarbindIndex and alarmModelVarbindValue
> >     MUST be set before row can go active.
> >
> > Sharon-> I've fixed this another way.
> ...
> 
> AlarmModelRowStatus *still* needs to spell out what objects
> are necessary
> for the row to be activated.  See
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-
> guidelines-02.txt
> 
> 
>      - The DESCRIPTION clause of the status column MUST specify which
>        columnar objects (if any) have to be set to valid values before
>        the row can be activated.  If any objects in cascading tables
>        have to be populated with related data before the row can be
>        activated, then this MUST also be specified.
> 
> 
> Randy
> 

Actually all read-create objects have a DEFVAL clause. If one would create a
row without setting any of them, no harm would happen, other than a useless
row being created. Do we need to say in this case that 'syntactically you
can do it, bit it would be a loss of time'?

Dan