Subject: AgentX implications of rfc 1905 changes

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:52:04 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

(Some of you may have been following the discussion on
 the snmpv3 mailing list on issue 1905-37.  Although many
 of the posts are incorrectly labeled as being for issue
 1905-32, the summary is available for your enjoyment at
 ftp://amethyst.bmc.com/pub/snmpv3/Update567/rfc1905/issue1905-37.html
)

If these changes (proposed new error code) are adopted, are
corresponding changes to the agentx specifications planned?

In particular, what's the current thinking on how we can modify the
commit protocol to accomodate the "early bailout" implied by the proposed
"complexity limitation" error?  It sounds to me like it would be a new
phase after the initial TestSets have been distributed, but before any
CommitSets are issued.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]     http://www.bmc.com/
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Lauren Heintz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:43:42 -0700

Perhaps the person who raised the issue could make the first detailed
suggestions on what should change -- specifically, a) how could RFC1905
and the elements of procedure, etc., be rewritten/modified to resolve
the issue, and b), how would the AgentX documents be changed?

I suggest this radical approach because of the obvious lack of certainty
that the issue is even clearly understood -- as evidenced by more than a few
admissions to that fact during the course of this discussion, as well as my
own doubts.

Thanks,
Lauren

---

From: Michael Thatcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:54:58 -0700

Jez, I understood the proposal as being rejected, mostly on the grounds of
dbh's message.  I.E it is raising an old issue which was not supported in
the past and does not have concensus now.

MikeT