Re: Doubts about rfc 1447

[[e-mail]]

>o in order to consider a row from the aclTable as ready for activation,
> do the parties/context referred in it have to exist? And what about
> the contextTable?

I would say yes to both.  Though you are right in pointing out that no
procedure is documented what happens to an ACL entry when a party or
context is deleted.

>o rfc 1447 says (pg 33) about contextProxyDstParty:
>  "If the value of the corresponding instance of the
>  contextViewIndex is greater than zero, then the
>         value of an instance of this object is { 0 0 }."
>
> This means that:
>  - is {0 0} returned for get requests ?

Yes.

>  - is contextProxyDstParty automatically set to {0 0} ?

not necessarily.  This is not explicity said.

>  - is the set operation on contextViewIndex refused unless 
>    contextProxyDstParty is {0 0} ?

No.  This is not implied in the RFC.
  
>o rfc 1447 says (pg 35) about contextStatus:
>  "A context is not qualified for activation until
>          instances of all corresponding columns have the
>          appropriate value.  In  particular, if the
>          context's contextViewIndex is greater than zero,
>          then the viewStatus column of the associated
>          conceptual row(s) in the viewTable must have the
>          value `active'.  ..."

> Should this be checked when setting contextViewIndex?
> I doesn't seem to be mandatory to do it but, it could be useful
> for an user. 

No.  A row in the not-ready status can have bogus information in it
legally.  If you decide to only allow active viewIndices for the
contextViewIndex then I do not think you will break anything either for
that manner.  It seems this can be implementation specific withouth blowing
anything up.

> In general, for managed objects whose value has some constraint like
> that (another example is the size of partyTAddress when partyTDomain
> is { snmpUDPDomain }), should the values provided in set requests
> be checked or this should be delayed until activating
> (setting RowStatus to active / notInService) the row?

As above, either way could be legal.


>Please state in your answer if it corresponds to something mandatory or 
>is a recommendation based on your experience.


I think only one of my answers above (the "Yes." one) is hard in stone.
The others I have tried to answer in the "spirit" of the model but I'm 
sure it could be argued another way.

Chris