RE: RowStatus questions

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I have been promoting option 4 lately.

And I would also not have a problem if a MIB developer
writes in a DESCRIPTION clause of a table that all the
objects/columns for a row must indeed appear in one
SNMP SET PDU and I would even accept if you REQUIRED
them to be in the sequence as defined in the table.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:wes@hardakers.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 6:40 AM
> To: eos@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RowStatus questions
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so lets say you're writing a MIB today (many of us are).  Everyone
> supposedly hates RowStatus, but the primary reason is the
> create-and-wait state.
> 
> So, if you were writing a (standards-based) MIB what would you do
> given todays choices:
> 
> 1) use RowStatus as is, since it's still the currently 
> accepted method.
> 2) Make something up for the MIB (ick).
> 3) use new not-yet standardized ideas (eos-rowops, being one example).
>    [this isn't really an option of course, since I expect my draft to
>     go to proposed before the eos is done debating this issue, and I
>     can't wait (let alone wait for new deployment of protocol code)]
> 4) use RowStatus but in the compliance statements specify that the
>    createAndWait enum value isn't required.
> 5) ???
> 
> -- 
> "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will
>  insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."   -- 
> Terry Pratchett
>