Subject: RE: [Disman] LocalSnmpEngineOrZeroLenStr in draft-ietf-disman-al arm-mib-15.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:44:29 -0400

Hi

Oops.  Make that Randy-44.

Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 3:42 PM
To: 'Disman (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [Disman] LocalSnmpEngineOrZeroLenStr in
draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi

The following is the proposed resolution to Randy-74-4. Assuming no
objection, this item will is closed with no changes to the draft.

I don't get your issue with the word instantiate
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=instantiate). Textual
conventions are abstract. When we use them in object definitions they are
concrete.

The 'Local' refers to where the alarm originated. So on a distributed
manager, there could potentially be different engine IDs. This is explained
in the instantiation of the TC.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:18 PM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: [Disman] LocalSnmpEngineOrZeroLenStr 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
...
> 44) page 15 (LocalSnmpEngineOrZeroLenStr): where the DESCRIPTION
>     talks about "instantiation" doesn't make sense.  I think it's
>     referring to use of the TC in an OBJECT-TYPE definition, rather
>     than object instantiation.
>
> Sharon -> This seems more a wordsmith thing.
...

The DESCRIPTION still doesn't make sense.  It currently says:
               "An SNMP Engine ID or a zero-length string. The
               instantiation of this object will provide guidance
               on when this will be an SNMP Engine ID and when it
               will be a zero lengths string"

This is a TC definition, so "instantiation of this object will provide
guidance" makes no sense at all to me.  In both cases where this TC is used,
the conditions for a zero-length string value are the same: either the
notification came from a protocol (SNMPv1 is not the only one! don't forget
SNMPv2c) which doesn't use SNMP Engine ID, or all entries in the table
currently have the same Engine ID.  (I guess that means that when one
arrives from some other engine, all these objects' values will change from
zero-length string back to their "real" values.  Am I the only person
bothered by this?)

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:58:54 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 12:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [Disman] LocalSnmpEngineOrZeroLenStr in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

...
> conventions are abstract. When we use them in object definitions they are

It talks about  "instantiation of this object".  In a TC definition, what could
"this object" possibly refer to?

Again, in all the cases where the TC is used, the conditions for zero
length are the same, so why not simply factor that commonality back
into the TC definition, and get rid of the indirection?

> in the instantiation of the TC.

But as these are presently written, it sounds like the value has to be zero-length
string until it has received things with different engineIDs.  I'm sure that's not
what's intended.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:58:54 -0700

Hi -

...