Re: Party row destruction.
Keith McCloghrie <kzm@hls.com> Tue, 17 August 1993 05:10 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21225;
17 Aug 93 1:10 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21221;
17 Aug 93 1:10 EDT
Received: from SLEEPY.TIS.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15510;
17 Aug 93 1:10 EDT
Received: from sleepy.tis.com by sleepy.TIS.COM id aa01842; 17 Aug 93 4:51 GMT
Received: from tis.com by sleepy.TIS.COM id aa01838; 17 Aug 93 0:37 EDT
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by TIS.COM (4.1/SUN-5.64)
id AA08237; Tue, 17 Aug 93 00:37:22 EDT
Received: from lanslide.hls.com by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7)
id <AA19972> for snmpv2@tis.com; Tue, 17 Aug 93 00:37:19 EDT
Received: from nms.hls.com by lanslide.hls.com (4.1/SMI-4.0)
id AA20309; Mon, 16 Aug 93 21:37:08 PDT
Received: by nms.hls.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07222; Mon, 16 Aug 93 21:26:47 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Keith McCloghrie <kzm@hls.com>
Message-Id: <9308170426.AA07222@nms.hls.com>
Subject: Re: Party row destruction.
To: F.Goncalves@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 93 21:26:46 PDT
Cc: snmp@psi.com, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com
In-Reply-To: <9308131416.AA02290@psi.com>;
from "F.Goncalves@cs.ucl.ac.uk" at Aug 13, 93 3:16 pm
Organization: Hughes LAN Systems
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
> Lets suppose that a set request is sent with "a" and "b" as source > and destination parties and it > delets the entry of the party table descriving "a" (or "b"). > > After doing the operation, should the response be sent? If you forced me to choose, I'd say no. However, I don't think it necessary to make up rules for what agents should do in response to something which a sensible manager won't do. Thus, I suggest the result should be implementation-dependent, allowing the agent do whatever's easiest for it to do. Keith.
- Party row destruction. F.Goncalves
- Re: Party row destruction. Keith McCloghrie