Re: [Disman] draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-06.txt: Issue-1 -> "MAYnot"

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

> From: "Benoit Claise" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Disman (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Disman] draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-06.txt: Issue-1 -> "MAYnot"
...
> Before the mteTriggerEntryStatus is set to active, the mteTriggerObjects
> must point to the mteObjectsName in the mteObjectsTable. Right now, the
> corresponding mteObjectsEntryStatus doesn't have to be active before the
> mteTriggerEntryStatus.
> I like this flexibility (the EVENT-MIB is complex enough already) but is
> it as designed?

I, too, like this flexibility.  It simplifies things at both ends, especially when
one considers existance / validity checks that need to be performed anyway
if rows can be deleted.

> Should we complement the mteTriggerEntryStatus DESCRIPTION with a
> sentence such as: The entry in the mteObjectsTable corresponding to the
> mteTriggerObject MUST be active before activating this entry?

In my opinion, no.

> Same remark with the mteTrigger*Event. Before the mteTriggerEntryStatus
> is set to active, the mteTrigger*Event must point to the mteEventName in
> the mteEventTable . Right now, the corresponding mteEventEntryStatus
> doesn't have to be active before the mteTriggerEntryStatus. Again, I
> like this flexibility, but is it as initially designed?
...

I think it is.

Randy