Re: [RMONMIB] smilint messages for APM-MIB

[Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>]

Hi -

> Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020806165707.00b23248@fedex.cisco.com>
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:11:49 -0700
> To: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>
> From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re:  [RMONMIB] smilint messages for APM-MIB
> Cc: rmonmib@ietf.org, mibs@ops.ietf.org
> In-Reply-To: <200208062349.QAA06887@dorothy.bmc.com>
...
> Should the RFC 1905 update increase the limit to the same value the
> SMIng WG will use?  IMO, this CLR is too restrictive and has proven
> to be too low a number considering current MIB design practices.
> This CLR was added to SNMP to benefit MIB compiler and MIB engine
> developers, at the expense of MIB designers. 
...

Although in my experience this rule actually complicated MIB
compiler and SNMP engine implementation, and although I've
never liked the limitation, I feel it's important to point
out that RFC 2741 strongly assumes this limitation in the ad
hoc encoding rules it employes.  For example, the AgentX pdu
format only allocates eight bits to locate a sub-identifier.
(I've BCC-ed the AgentX list so that folks there are aware of
this discussion.)

Despite the number of WGs that this would impact, could we
discuss it in just one place?  I really hate adding to the
cross-posting list.

If the proposal is to change the RFC 1905 update, I believe
this belongs on the snmpv3 WG mailing list.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San Jose, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------