Subject: [CCAMP] A comment on draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:57:32 +0100

Listening to Malcolm's comment at the mic just now, it makes a lot of sense to
me to make sure that parameters cannot be independently set in an inconsistent
way.

There are two ways to achieve this in a MIB module:

The first way (which seems to be what this I-D is doing - but I have only
skim-read) is to make the max-Access clause of the objects read-only. That means
that the detailed parameters can be read, but are consequence of the setting of
the major parameters of the link.

The other option is to describe (in the Description clauses) the conflicts that
are not allowed and how the SET operations must fail when conflicting values are
set. This seems particularly complex in the case of black links, but is still
achievable.

Just my $0.02

Adrian

---

From: "Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:09:54 -0500

Hi Adrian,

There are 10 or so parameters that are read-write in the mib. Now we are trying the second option to describe the restriction in the description clauses of these parameters. Some of these parameters depend on the application code and some are not. So far it seems not too complex. 

Thank you for the suggestions.

Regards,
Kam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:58 AM
> To: 'CCAMP'
> Subject: [CCAMP] A comment on draft-galimbe-kunze-g-698-2-snmp-mib
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp