Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.]
Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com> Tue, 09 September 2008 12:52 UTC
Message-Id: <TUE.9.SEP.2008.145237.0200.>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:52:37 +0200
From: Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.]
Comments: To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Comments: cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0046BBEDC12574BF_="
Thanks Bert, I made the changes as suggested, the updated draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-mib-09.txt My summary of the changes is copied below (See Section 10 in the draft). Regards, -Robert Changes from draft-ietf-forces-mib-08: o Changed the MIB objects forcesAssociationOtherMsgSent and forcesAssociationOtherMsgReceived to forcesAssociationOperMsgSent and forcesAssociationOperMsgReceived as they are not all other messages besides HB (comment from the General Area Review Team). o Changed MIB counter objects forcesAssociationHBMsgSent, forcesAssociationHBMsgReceived, forcesAssociationOperMsgSent, and forcesAssociationOperMsgReceived from Counter32 to ZeroBasedCounter32 (comment from Bert Wijnen). Adapted the paragraph about statistics counters in section "Associations kept in the MIB" o Introduced a MIB object forcesAssociationCounterDiscontinuityTime, and added it to the forcesAssociationEntry as well as to the forcesAssociationEntryDownStats notification and the forcesStatsGroup compliance group. Added text on discontinuity for all counter objects. o Removed MIB counters from the forcesAssociationEntryUpStats notification, as passing now zero values is useless. "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> wrote on 09/08/2008 10:39:12 PM: > [image removed] > > Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > > Bert Wijnen \(IETF\) > > to: > > Robert Haas > > 09/08/2008 10:40 PM > > Cc: > > FORCES, "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" > > From your description it sounds that indeed a ZeroBasedCounter32 would be > better. That way you indicate it starts at zero. > > And hearing that the same index (FEID+CEID) could come to life in the > table after one has been deleted, that makes it as a discontinuity. > How else would a NM appliation know that this is a different entry? > And so a discontinuity timestamp is needed. > > If there are no other reason why a discontinuity can occur (I do not know, > because I know to little of forces), then it would be good to state so. > > Text on page 32 of > > http://www.wtcs.org/snmp4tpc/FILES/Reference/snmp%20counters.pdf > is an example of a discontinuity counter. > > Bert > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com> > To: <bertietf@bwijnen.net> > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:44 PM > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > > > > Bert, > > Indeed, I refrained as I saw that the use of ZeroBasedCounter32 was often > > discouraged ... But in the ForCES MIB, when the ForCES association comes > > up, a table row is created, and when the association goes down, the table > > row is destroyed. So it would be more natural if the counters in that row > > were zero-based (zeroed upon creation of the table row) instead of > > starting at a random value. If you say it's an acceptable use case then > > I'll change to ZeroBasedCounter32. > > > > Note that an association is identified by its index which is the > > concatenation of the FEID and CEID forming the association. So a new > > association coming up between the same FEID and CEID would appear with the > > same index as a previous association that went down. Would this be > > considered a discontinuity as the counters appear to be reset ? Apart from > > that, what else would cause a discontinuity ? > > I'd use the text from page 32 in > > http://www.wtcs.org/snmp4tpc/FILES/Reference/snmp%20counters.pdf to > > address this. > > > > Thanks, > > -Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > From: > > Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> > > To: > > FORCES@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM > > Date: > > 09/08/2008 03:07 PM > > Subject: > > [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > > > > > > > > Bert, > > Forwarded to Robert and Forces list (sorry couldnt figure how to let the > > allow you to post without subscribing you) > > > > cheers, > > jamal > > > > ----- Message from "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> on Mon, 8 > > Sep 2008 11:17:42 +0200 ----- > > To: > > dro@zurich.ibm.com, hadi@znyx.com > > Subject: > > Pls post this to forces WG list. > > I am not on the list and do not want to subscribe either. So my > > posting got bounced. Pls forward or post it for me. > > > > So if people want to comment/respond, they should explicitly > > copy me. > > > > Bert Wijnen > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> > > To: <ietf@ietf.org> > > Cc: <forces@peach.ease.lsoft.com> > > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:54 AM > > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-forces-mib (ForCES MIB) to > > ProposedStandard > > > > > >>I sort of wonder if the Counter32 is the proper datatype for some > >> of the counters. They sound more like ZeroBasedCounter32 to me. > >> > >> Further I do not see any text regarding possible discontinuities. > >> > >> Bert Wijnen > >> > > > > > > > > > >
- Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Robert Haas
- [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Patrick Droz
- Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Robert Haas
- Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Robert Haas
- [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Jamal Hadi Salim