Re: Proposed text for xyzValidIntervals/xyzInvalidIntervals

[Rajesh Abbi <[e-mail]>]

Mike,

I have following comments on your proposal ...

C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc. wrote:

> proposed>      -- xyzValidIntervals OBJECT-TYPE
> proposed>      --       SYNTAX  INTEGER (0..<n>)
> proposed>      --               1 =< n =< 96
> proposed>      --       MAX-ACCESS  read-only
> proposed>      --       STATUS  current
> proposed>      --       DESCRIPTION
> proposed>      --       "The number of previous 15-minute intervals for
> proposed>      --       which at least some valid data was collected.
> proposed>      --       The value will be <n> unless the interface was
> proposed>      --       brought online within the last (<n>*15) minutes,
> proposed>      --       in which case the value will be the number of
> proposed>      --       past intervals for which the agent has at least
> proposed>      --       some valid data.  In the case where the agent
> proposed>      --       is a proxy it is possible that some intervals
> proposed>      --       are unavailable.  In this case, the value of
> proposed>      --       this object is the maximum interval number for
> proposed>      --       which at least some some valid data is available."
> proposed>      --       ::= { xxx }

I believe that this object is 'mis-named' - perhaps it should be
named'xyzMaxAvailableInterval'.  I do NOT see any meaning of 'validity' here.
I would describe it as:
"The oldest interval for which an entry is available in this table."

Note that the above item includes the number of 'InvalidIntervals' as well.

>
>
> proposed>      -- xyzInvalidIntervals OBJECT-TYPE
> proposed>      --     SYNTAX  INTEGER (0..<n>)
> proposed>      --     MAX-ACCESS  read-only
> proposed>      --     STATUS  current
> proposed>      --     DESCRIPTION
> proposed>      --       "The number of intervals in the range from
> proposed>      --       1 to xyzValidIntervals for which no valid
> proposed>      --       is available.  This object will typically
> proposed>      --       be zero except in proxy situations."
> proposed>      --       ::= { xxx }
>

If an interval is termed 'Invalid' if NO valid data is collected, how is
this interval treated ?  I believe two options exist:
A) The corresponding entry is NOT PRESENT in the table (ie: noSuch)
B) The entry is present, but all counters are set to '0' AND the
     'xyzIntervalValidData' flag is set to 'false'.

Note that is option (A) is used, the meaning of interval 'count' would
be different.  Option (A) would be preferable, but I know many SNMP
managers have problems dealing with 'missing' (noSuch) objects.

Also, I would like to add that it is possible to have 'Invalid' intervals
even in a 'non-proxy' situation (see my earlier response
' Re: Proposals to clarify xyzIntervalValidData description'.

Rajesh