Subject: Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:21:01 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 19:26:12 -0800
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-01.txt
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
...
> >> In our implementation, we leave mteHotValue out of the notification if
> >> it is not a 32 bit integer. 
> >> 
> >> I'd be interested in hearing what others have done in this case. 
> >...
> >
> >Would it be too heretical to suggest that perhaps we should have
> >used Opaque for this object-type's syntax?
...
> What would the value be if you used type "OPAQUE"?
...

For example, if the monitored object had a SYNTAX of
Integer32, and a value of 7, the value of the Opaque
would be three bytes long and equal to 0x02 0x01 0x07
and the whole thing (including the Opaque tag) would be
0x44 0x03 0x02 0x01 0x07.

For example, if the monitored object had a SYNTAX of
Counter64, and a value of 7, the value of the Opaque
would be three bytes long and equal to 0x46 0x01 0x07
and the whole thing (including the Opaque tag) would be
0x44 0x03 0x46 0x01 0x07.

For example, if the monitored object had a SYNTAX of
OBJECT IDENTIFIER, and a value of 1.3, the value of the
Opaque would be three bytes long and equal to 0x06 0x01 0x2b
and the whole thing (including the Opaque tag) would be
0x44 0x03 0x06 0x01 0x2b.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-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.
 ------------------------------------------------------