Subject: Re: AgentX transport MIB definitions

From: "Smitha Gudur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:41:45 PDT

Hi, Lauren,

>From [email-masked] Mon Aug  3 17:15:06 1998
>Received: (from uucp@localhost)
>	by almond.bmc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09251
>	for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:14:59 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from firewall.bmc.com(192.245.162.250)
>	by almond.bmc.com via smap (V2.0)
>	id xma008605; Mon, 3 Aug 98 19:13:01 -0500
>Received: (from uucp@localhost)
>	by dresden.bmc.com (8.8.5/8.8.6) id TAA12787
>	for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:12:25 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from tangelo.bmc.com(172.17.7.166) by dresden.bmc.com via 
smap (3.2)
>	id xma011782; Mon, 3 Aug 98 19:11:33 -0500
>Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (dorothy.peer.com [192.146.153.65])
>	by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id TAA22310;
>	Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:11:52 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from tangelo.bmc.com ([email-masked] [172.17.7.166])
>	by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA11927
>	for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from bmc.com (lucille.peer.com [192.146.153.185])
>	by tangelo.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id SAA19843;
>	Mon, 3 Aug 1998 18:58:06 -0500 (CDT)
>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 16:56:05 -0700
>From: Lauren Heintz <[email-masked]>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; U)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: AgentX transport MIB definitions
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Hi,
>
>-- Since RFC 2257 makes equal reference to both TCP and
>Unix domain socket transports, shouldn't the AgentX MIB also do so?
>For example, the MIB has an AgentXTCPAddress TC definition,
>but no similar TC definition for Unix domain sockets.  Similarly,
>an agentXTCPDomain object is defined, but not a corresponding one
>for Unix domain sockets.

Actually AgentxTCPAddress is not being used in the MIB. so this
needs to be taken out.

As there was no point in duplicating these definitions in this MIB, 
currently TDomain and TAddress are being used in the MIB.

thanks
smitha

>
>-- The AgentXTCPAddress TC should clarify the byte
>contents and ordering for objects of this type.  For example:
>
>	"Represents a TCP address consisting of a four byte
>	 IP address value followed by a two byte port value
>	 in network-byte order."
>
>Lauren
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lauren Heintz                 BMC Software, Inc. (Formerly PEER 
Networks) 
>Voice: +1 408 616-3169        Silicon Valley Division 
>Fax:   +1 408 616-3339        965 Stewart Drive 
>Email: [email-masked]  Sunnyvale, California 94086 USA 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

---

From: Lauren Heintz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:55:05 -0700

Hi Smitha,

While AgentXTCPAddress and AgentXTCPDomain are indeed
not used in the AgentX MIB, they still need to be defined
somewhere so that implementations can access and correctly
interpet the TDomain and TAddress values.

If they are not to be defined in the AgentX MIB, where
then will they be defined?  I couldn't find them defined
anywhere else, so it seems we'll have to.  Yes?  No?

Tks,
Lauren

-- 
Lauren Heintz                 BMC Software, Inc. (Formerly PEER Networks)

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:50:29 +0200

>>>>> Lauren Heintz writes:

Lauren> While AgentXTCPAddress and AgentXTCPDomain are indeed not used
Lauren> in the AgentX MIB, they still need to be defined somewhere so
Lauren> that implementations can access and correctly interpet the
Lauren> TDomain and TAddress values.

Right. This is IMHO the job of the SNMP working group. We need a set
of TDomain and TAddress definition in several places. Putting them
into AgentX, IPv6, or application mgmt MIBs is the wrong approach.
Please go to the SNMP meeting or the open area meeting and raise your
voice that we need to make progress faster on things like this.

Lauren> If they are not to be defined in the AgentX MIB, where then
Lauren> will they be defined?  I couldn't find them defined anywhere
Lauren> else, so it seems we'll have to.  Yes?  No?

I proposed on the SNMPv3 WG mailing list to move TDomain and TAddress
definitions over to IANA. This allows to make updates with a much
faster procedure so that the TC definitions can be extended as needed.
Perhaps our ADs can help to solve this problem if the SNMPv3 has not
the ressources to do this in a timely manner.
							Juergen

Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)