Re: draft-ietf-eos-snmp-rowops-00.txt

[Robert Story <rstory@freesnmp.com>]

At 5:25 PM -0700 5/1/01, Lauren Heintz wrote:
>For a SetRow request, if the instancePart of a rowOp is the
>same as any other rowOp in the same PDU, that is intended to
>be an error.
>
I'm not sure I agree. If the instance part is the same, but the row is
different (one table AUGMENTS the other), then they are setting different
attributes of the same row, and thus I would think it would be common that
they would be in the same PDU.  For the case of a simple index, the
instance inheritance idea doesn't save space, but for longer indexes it
would.

>  1.  GetRow (rowId1:foo.row1, op1A=fooInt, op1B=fooUnsigned32)
>
>and using your suggestion:
>
>  4.  GetRow (rowId1=foo.row1, op1A=fooInt, rowId2=1.0:1.0,
>op2A=fooUnsigned32)
>
No, what I'm suggesting is that

1.GetRow(rowId1:foo.row1,op1A=fooInt,rowId2=fum.row1,op1B=fooUnsigned32)

could be

4.GetRow(rowId1=foo.row1,op1A=fooInt, rowId2=fum.1.0,op1B=fooUnsigned32)


>Besides I think the 1.0 cannot be distinguished
>from actual instance values that may be in a vb.value (whereas
>the 1.0 values in the vb.name can always be distinguished
>from valid MIB objects).
>
That's a good point. How about

      rowIdentifier = <vb.name=tableEntryPart,
                       vb.type=NULL,
                       vb.value=>