RE:redundent objects in phivCountersCountEntry
saperia@tcpjon.lkg.dec.com Tue, 15 December 1992 14:20 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01828; 15 Dec 92 9:20 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01823; 15 Dec 92 9:20 EST
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06352; 15 Dec 92 9:22 EST
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA02638; Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:22:03 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA08785; Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:14:02 -0800
Received: by nsl.pa.dec.com; id AA08781; Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:14:01 -0800
Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA02019; Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:13:59 -0800
Received: by tcpjon.lkg.dec.com (5.57/ULTRIX-fma-071891); id AA03810; Tue, 15 Dec 92 09:16:59 -0500
Message-Id: <9212151416.AA03810@tcpjon.lkg.dec.com>
To: phiv-mib@pa.dec.com
Cc: melman@fibhaifa.com, saperia@tcpjon.lkg.dec.com
Subject: RE:redundent objects in phivCountersCountEntry
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:16:57 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: saperia@tcpjon.lkg.dec.com
X-Mts: smtp
Hi, Sorry for the delay in responding to questions about the duplicate objects: phivCountersCountDataBlocksRecd phivCountersCountDataBlksRecd phivCountersCountDataBlocksSent phivCountersCountDataBlksSent I remember that we discussed the need for these counters during the early stages of the MIB development. In fact, John Shriver sent out a note explaining the distinction between counting information for DECNet LINKs and LINEs. Clearly what has happened is that during the editing stages we messed up and it was not caught. While we did preserve the Blocks and Blks entries to have separate objects for LINK and LINE Data Blocks sent and received, we did not catch the fact that the OBJECT DESCRIPTIONS were the same. Given that the group has the following conformance language: -- Counters Group -- The implementation of the Counters Group is mandatory for -- systems which only support DECnet style locking counters. I need to ask, has anybody implemented these objects? Based on the answer to this question, I see the following options: 1. If nobody has implemented the group, and there is a clear consensus that it has proved to be not useful, we can eliminate the entire group and this problem along with it. 2. If people do want to keep the group, I would be interested to learn if anybody has implemented it (or are planning to implement it) and if so, what was done with these objects. One possibility is to just keep one pair and only count, for example, link data. 3. It is also possible to obsolete two objects and define two new ones with different descriptions which I am sure we could agree to if necessary. Comments? /jon ------------------------------------------ Jon Saperia, Digital Equipment Corporation Internet: saperia@lkg.dec.com 508-486-5959