Subject: apsCommandSwitch in draft-ietf-atommib-sonetaps-mib-04

From: Muly Ilan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:47:18 +0200

All,

The description of the attribute apsCommandSwitch includes " .... The return
of the last command written does not imply that this command is currently in
effect. This request may have been preempted by a higer priority local or
remote request. ...."

What happens, SNMP wise,  in the opposite case when a command is sent to the
NE but can't be executed because of existing higher priority local or remote
request?
Should the SNMP set-response indicate an error? Should the last value
written be kept in the apsCommandSwitch object or maybe ignore the last
value because it was never performed and according to GR-253-CORE there is
no pending of external requests?

BTW, the spelling of "higer" is not mine, it's in the original draft.

Muly Ilan
Corrigent Systems

---

From: Jim Kuhfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:20:49 -0700

I would expect an error in that case, and could add language to that effect to the
description.

     If the APS switch command cannot be set because an
     equal or higer priority request is in effect, an
     inconsistentValue error is returned.

---

From: Michael Thatcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:31:30 -0700

I don't belive this additional text is required.  It is clear that snmp requires an
error return when a set cannot complete for whatever reason.  What error is returned
is dependent on when during set processing the problem is detected.

miket