Subject: Re: AgentX implications of rfc 1905 changes

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:23:04 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 18:43:42 -0700
> From: Lauren Heintz <[email-masked]>
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: AgentX implications of rfc 1905 changes
> References: <[email-masked]>
> 
> 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?
...

The issue comes from another WG.
Aleksey made a detailed proposal, available at
ftp://ftp.peer.com/pub/snmpv3/Update567/msgs/1999-09-23_084343.html

Since the opposition in the snmpv3 working group appears to have given
up, what is the agentx working group going to do about it?

> 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.
...

I think the summary I mailed out (see below) covers the essentials.
I really hate it, but in the absence of opposition in the snmpv3 WG,
I think we're stuck with it.

> > 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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:22:27 -0700

Hi Randy,

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> > > It sounds to me like it would be a new

How would this help?  What would the new phase do for a given subagent that
couldn't be done in the testSet (or I guess, the commitSet) phase?

Also, in order to be able determine if a SET request is too complex or not,
might not AgentX be required to support subagent-to-subagent communication
in some cases?

   ....
   At any stage during the first phase, if it is detected that                |
   the variable binding's name specifies an existing or non-                  |
   existent variable which cannot be processed together with                  |
   other vairables in the PDU due to constrains of particular                 |
   implementation, the the value of the Response-PDU's error-status           |
   field is set to 'requestTooComplex', and the value of its error-index      |
   field is set to the index of failed variable binding. Any SNMPv2           |
   ....

Lastly, if I read the above proposed text correctly (specifically the part
that says "if it is detected"), it seems to suggest that requestTooComplex
is something that might optionally be returned.  If that's the case, then
isn't AgentX fine the way it is currently specified, and maybe the only
change "technically" needed would be to add another of those disclaimer
comments about which kinds of subagents AgentX supports and doesn't support?

Thanks,
Lauren