From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 2 14:43:37 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00637 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g72IlUD06426; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:47:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id LAA10906 for agentx-list; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id LAA10900 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200208021835.LAA10900@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Interesting use of agentx Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi - An interesting new I-D identifies AgentX as a key piece of infrastructure. draft-bush-inline-predictive-mgt-00.txt ------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------ My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Mon Aug 5 21:11:02 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09885 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:11:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g761DKj02524; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:13:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id SAA00151 for agentx-list; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id SAA00145 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 18:01:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200208060101.SAA00145@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Should I keep AgentX list alive? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi - I've noticed that a lot of the addresses on the agentx mailing list are now bouncing. It's been some time since there's been any real discussion on this list. Is it time to pull the plug? ------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------ My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Aug 6 01:44:51 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA16874 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g765lho04549; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 00:47:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id WAA03280 for agentx-list; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 22:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA03274; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 22:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g765ZSZ24087; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 00:35:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from iere.net.avaya.com (iere.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.101]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 47B3E1FF028; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 00:40:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from iere.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iere.net.avaya.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g765c1Q09948; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:38:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by iere.net.avaya.com (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g765bxi09925; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:38:00 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: Should I keep AgentX list alive? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:40:03 +0300 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Should I keep AgentX list alive? Thread-Index: AcI85hBN1tC4EpBWTaWHN6qHaRDM5AAJLqMA From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Randy Presuhn" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dorothy.bmc.com id WAA03275 Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit let me test the number of bounces ;-) IMO as long as the technology is not proved to be dead and buried such lists should remain active to provide a media for discussions related to implementation, questions for clarification, possible future extensions, etc. I do not think that AgentX technology can be declared dead - I would vote for keeping the list for a while. Clean-up of bouncing addresses would certainly help. I noticed an increase in the number of such addresses lately on many lists. The reasons mat be in many cases related to people leaving their working places with other thoughts in mind than e-mail lists etiquette ;-( Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 4:02 AM > To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com > Subject: Should I keep AgentX list alive? > > > Hi - > > I've noticed that a lot of the addresses on the agentx mailing > list are now bouncing. It's been some time since there's been > any real discussion on this list. Is it time to pull the plug? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 > randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street > Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA > ------------------------------------------------------ > My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. > ------------------------------------------------------ > From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Aug 6 11:06:00 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14279 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76F67t27754; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:06:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id HAA04410 for agentx-list; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA04404; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 07:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76Erxs20028; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:53:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (unknown [192.11.223.163]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 10A0820EF93; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:58:50 -0500 (CDT) Received: from md6370exch004u.wins.lucent.com (h135-114-172-12.lucent.com [135.114.172.12]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g76Ewkb17982; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:58:45 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" To: Randy Presuhn Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: RE: Should I keep AgentX list alive? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:58:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Hi Randy, > I've noticed that a lot of the addresses on the agentx mailing > list are now bouncing. It's been some time since there's been > any real discussion on this list. Is it time to pull the plug? Of course, we must be cognizant of the fact that BMC donates resources of several kinds to the AgentX mailing list and if the list is not performing a useful public service perhaps those resources could be better used by BMC. That said, if the resource impact is still acceptable to BMC, I suggest keeping the list active. At some point in time, we will have to consider whether AgentX should progress from Draft to Full standard status. Prior to that, I will try to get the people who are doing a fair amount of AgentX work on other lists to direct topics that might affect future standardization (rather than just implementation of current specifications, although that is extremely useful discussion) to the "official" AgentX list... and to get anyone on those lists who has not subscribed to the AgentX list to do so. Cordially, BobN From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Aug 6 14:43:40 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23327 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g76Ihho20575; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:43:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id LAA05795 for agentx-list; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id LAA05789 for agentx@dorothy.bmc.com; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:35:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200208061835.LAA05789@dorothy.bmc.com> To: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: RE: Should I keep AgentX list alive? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi - > Message-ID: > From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" > To: Randy Presuhn > Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com > Subject: RE: Should I keep AgentX list alive? > Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:58:44 -0400 ... > That said, if the resource impact is still acceptable to BMC, > I suggest keeping the list active. At some point in time, we > will have to consider whether AgentX should progress from Draft > to Full standard status. Prior to that, I will try to get the > people who are doing a fair amount of AgentX work on other lists > to direct topics that might affect future standardization (rather > than just implementation of current specifications, although that > is extremely useful discussion) to the "official" AgentX list... > and to get anyone on those lists who has not subscribed to the > AgentX list to do so. ... That answers my question. Fortunately, this discussion has also served to shake out a lot of the "dead wood" on the list. (BobN gets CCed when I drop subscribers, so he knows where we stand.) ------------------------------------------------------ Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 1-3141 randy_presuhn@bmc.com 2141 North First Street Tel: +1 408 546-1006 San José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------ My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Tue Aug 6 20:40:58 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05507 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g770exd16244; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:41:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id RAA10832 for agentx-list; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rpresuhn@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id RAA10826; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:32:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Randy Presuhn Message-Id: <200208070032.RAA10826@dorothy.bmc.com> To: mibs@ops.ietf.org, rmonmib@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] smilint messages for APM-MIB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > From: Andy Bierman > 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 José, California 95131 USA ------------------------------------------------------ My opinions and BMC's are independent variables. ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 9 13:10:01 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (firebird.bmc.com [198.207.223.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03595 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79HDDi29630; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:13:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id KAA24923 for agentx-list; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id KAA24917; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79GxVW19995; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:59:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from vmmr6.verisignmail.com (vmmr6.verisignmail.com [216.168.230.147]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EB05F1FF037; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:04:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from vmms6.verisignmail.com (vmms6.verisignmail.com [10.166.0.148]) by vmmr6.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id LSJ04240; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BOB.AppliedSNMP.com (pcp829873pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [68.50.128.134]) by vmms6.verisignmail.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id LVU03667; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020809125323.0216b4f8@mail.AppliedSNMP.com> X-Sender: Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com@mail.AppliedSNMP.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:09:20 -0400 To: Randy Presuhn From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: [AgentX] smilint messages for APM-MIB Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <200208070032.RAA10826@dorothy.bmc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list >At 8/6/2002:08:32 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi Randy, >> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:11:49 -0700 >> From: Andy Bierman >> Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] smilint messages for APM-MIB >... >> 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.) Thanks. An AgentX PDU encodes an OID value using an 8-bit "m_subid" field (as part of a 4-byte OID-header element) to record the number of sub-id elements in the OID, with the corresponding number of 32-bit sub-id values following contiguously. A comment in RFC2741 currently indicates that the range of "m_subid" is "0-128". I think AgentX could deal with this by modifying the elements of procedure to say that if the "m_subid" value in the AgentX OID header is less than 255 then it contains the number of sub- id elements as before, but if the value is 255 then the first 32-bit value following the four OID header bytes specifies the number of sub-id elements comprising the OID, the 32-bit values for which then follow contiguously as before. Of course, this would require a change to the specs that would require re-certifying for interoperability (I suppose). >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. Agreed, I have bcc'd the AgentX list, just to make sure that any interested parties there join in. >If the proposal is to change the RFC 1905 update, I believe >this belongs on the snmpv3 WG mailing list. Agreed, but I've kept this reply to mibs@ops.ietf.org until someone else makes the locus decision. Cheers, BobN From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 9 16:16:45 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09392 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79KKaT19218; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:20:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA25636 for agentx-list; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA25631 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79K9ml09143 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:09:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mercury.mv.net (unknown [199.125.85.40]) by mx-us-hou-1-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D9A8120EF9A for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:14:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ieee.org (bnh-3-04.mv.com [199.125.99.132]) by mercury.mv.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/mem-20020217) with ESMTP id QAA12214; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D542368.28277F98@ieee.org> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:17:44 -0400 From: Mark Ellison Organization: Ellison Software Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Natale Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: Re: [AgentX] smilint messages for APM-MIB References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020809125323.0216b4f8@mail.AppliedSNMP.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, From my perspective, setting h.version = 2 in the AgentX PDU header might be a better way to start out as I think there will be some additional AgentX requirements that emerge from current OPS WG efforts. For example, there may be a need to support a more data-structure oriented version of the SMI. Such a change may impact rules for subtree registrations, rules for determining authoritative regions, as well as impacting the AgentX PDU encoding. It seems it might be nicer/better/easier to bundle together these changes as version 2 of the AgentX specification. Regards, Mark Bob Natale wrote: > >At 8/6/2002:08:32 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > Hi Randy, > > >> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:11:49 -0700 > >> From: Andy Bierman > >> Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] smilint messages for APM-MIB > [deletions] > > Thanks. An AgentX PDU encodes an OID value using an 8-bit > "m_subid" field (as part of a 4-byte OID-header element) to > record the number of sub-id elements in the OID, with the > corresponding number of 32-bit sub-id values following > contiguously. A comment in RFC2741 currently indicates > that the range of "m_subid" is "0-128". > > I think AgentX could deal with this by modifying the elements > of procedure to say that if the "m_subid" value in the AgentX > OID header is less than 255 then it contains the number of sub- > id elements as before, but if the value is 255 then the first > 32-bit value following the four OID header bytes specifies the > number of sub-id elements comprising the OID, the 32-bit values > for which then follow contiguously as before. > [deletions] From owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Fri Aug 9 16:52:25 2002 Received: from babbler.bmc.com (camaro.bmc.com [198.207.223.231]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10781 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dorothy.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by babbler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79KuMu12258; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:56:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) id NAA25781 for agentx-list; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tattler.bmc.com (tattler.bmc.com [172.17.0.117]) by dorothy.bmc.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_12836)/8.8.6) with ESMTP id NAA25776 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tattler.bmc.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g79Kjvp00275 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:45:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (hoemail2.lucent.com [192.11.226.163]) by mx-us-hou-2-int.bmc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 918D21FF006 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:50:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from md6370exch004u.wins.lucent.com (h135-114-172-12.lucent.com [135.114.172.12]) by hoemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.2/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g79Koaf13012 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by md6370exch004u.nse.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:50:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Natale, Robert C (Bob)" To: Mark Ellison Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Subject: RE: [AgentX] smilint messages for APM-MIB Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:50:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-agentx@dorothy.bmc.com Precedence: bulk List-Id: IETF Agentx Working Group mailing list Hi Mark, Good ideas. If we find there are a number of changes to AgentX encodings required (or desired) as part of a v2, then it might be best to encode an OID type in a manner more similar to the OctetString type (i.e., where the length of the object is always specified as a 32-bit value just before the actual data). Or people might want to opt for something like the change I suggested (re the OID type alone, that is) since it would save 4 bytes for many/most OID objects. In either case, we'll have to bump the version number I'm sure (since AgentX apps which current check the 0-128 sub-id limit are now in compliance but would have to be modified for interoperability on that item). Cheers, BobN > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Ellison [mailto:ellison@ieee.org] > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 4:18 PM > To: Bob Natale > Cc: agentx@dorothy.bmc.com > Subject: Re: [AgentX] smilint messages for APM-MIB > > > Hi Bob, > > From my perspective, setting h.version = 2 in the AgentX PDU > header might > be a better way to start out as I think there will be some additional > AgentX requirements that emerge from current OPS WG efforts. > > For example, there may be a need to support a more > data-structure oriented > version of the SMI. Such a change may impact rules for subtree > registrations, rules for determining authoritative regions, as well as > impacting the AgentX PDU encoding. > > It seems it might be nicer/better/easier to bundle together > these changes > as version 2 of the AgentX specification. > > Regards, > > Mark > > Bob Natale wrote: > > > >At 8/6/2002:08:32 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > > Hi Randy, > > > > >> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:11:49 -0700 > > >> From: Andy Bierman > > >> Subject: Re: [RMONMIB] smilint messages for APM-MIB > > > > [deletions] > > > > > Thanks. An AgentX PDU encodes an OID value using an 8-bit > > "m_subid" field (as part of a 4-byte OID-header element) to > > record the number of sub-id elements in the OID, with the > > corresponding number of 32-bit sub-id values following > > contiguously. A comment in RFC2741 currently indicates > > that the range of "m_subid" is "0-128". > > > > I think AgentX could deal with this by modifying the elements > > of procedure to say that if the "m_subid" value in the AgentX > > OID header is less than 255 then it contains the number of sub- > > id elements as before, but if the value is 255 then the first > > 32-bit value following the four OID header bytes specifies the > > number of sub-id elements comprising the OID, the 32-bit values > > for which then follow contiguously as before. > > > > [deletions] > >