Subject: Re: List of Notif Log MIB issues

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 21:44:16 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

As a consensus check, I'm including the proposed resolutions
of these issues discussed in the WG meeting in Salt Lake City.
In some cases, folks have taken action items, and I'd love
to hear reports of rapid progress.

> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:50:04 -0800
> From: Ramanathan Kavasseri <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: List of Notif Log MIB issues
...
> 1. Should clarifying text be added as to whether inform resends are
> added to the notification Log.

Yes, text should be added that retransmissions (if detected
as such) are not added to logs.

> 2. Adding a number in the nlmLogTable that tells you how many variable
> bindings are stored in the
>     nlmLogVariableTable. This allows the log entry to be retrieved in
> fewer queries.

Sharon Chisholm took the action item to do the math to assess
what the actual improvement will be.  The numbers are... ?

> 3. Variable to indicate the current log index for each named log

Sharon Chisholm took the action item to do the math to assess
what the actual improvement will be.  The numbers are... ?

> 4. Should text be added to indicate that view-based access checks should
> not be done when the log is polled?

The text should be clarified that VACM (or whatever other
access control model is in place) does not need to do any
extraordinary processing to handle requests to access log
entries.

> 5. Accessing logged notifications is inefficient. Should this be
> revisited?

Ram and Dave Perkins volunteered get together to prototype
an alternate MIB proposal for more efficient retrieval, and
test it.  Status?  Contributions by any other design teams
would be most welcome, as would more reports of operational
experience.

> 6. Should we add a nlmLogConfigAgeout for each log?
...

The pros and cons of this proposal need to be discussed
on the mailing list.  Well?

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:27:43 -0800

HI,

Well, my plan is to go back to the notification distribution scheme found
in RFC 2573 and work forward. From my review last year, it appeared that
few understood it. (And I've yet to find a management app that could
intelligently configure the objects that control it. If anyone knows
of one, please send me a URL to info on it.) Also from my review last
year, it was clear that it was difficult to test implementations. 
To do a thorough test, there needed to be a mechanism that could be
used to cause "instrumentation" to "bubble up" specific notifications
with specific instances of variables to test the notification
distribution system in SNMP engine implementations. (And there is
not one that I know of that has been implemented.) Also, found in
the review of the notification distribution system was a lack of
counters that could be used to determine why a notification was
filtered.

With RFC 3014 (the notification log MIB), it set out to log notifications
that were distributed by a SNMP engine and to log notifications
received by a "mid-level manager" in one combined MIB module.
In my review last year, I found many problems and would like to
see the MIB module rewritten.

The Alarm work from Dan and Sharron is built on a functioning
notification log MIB. It concerns me that it is based on the
unsure foundation of RFC 3014.

So, the updates below of RFC 3014, while needed, do not
seem sufficient to me.
 
> Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141

Regards,
/david t. perkins