RE: RowStatus questions

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

Bert - just to clarify. You really meant all "read-create" columns
in a row of a table, and not all columns in a row.

At 02:04 AM 5/11/2002 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>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) ???
>> 
>> -- 
Regards,
/david t. perkins