Subject: Re: draft-kuhfeld-sonet-aps-mib-01

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:13:33 -0400

hi all,

any suggestions on how to proceed with this?
i've read both drafts and it seems that there are
no irreconcilable differences. i noticed some small
points:

- what about SDH? the sonet/sdh mid explicitly includes this
  we should make an explicit statement in the scope on
  inclusion/exclusion
- when using ifIndex given past experience we better state
  which particular value is used (see the figure in the sonet/sdh mib)
- avoid the use of DisplayString (use SnmpAdminstring or Utf8
- in jeff/jim's draft it seems that some sort of a state diagram on 
  the command table could be useful

kaj

At 10:18 AM 7/21/99 -0400, Ken Chapman wrote:
>I like the work done by Jeff and Jim on the SONET APS MIB.
>However, I'd like to suggest some changes.  
>- While I read somewhere recently that MIB tables should be 
>  indexed by names (DisplayString), I find it hard to accept 
>  that that is the "simplest" approach.  In the case of this MIB, 
>  I find that using an already well established (albeit not very 
>  easy to implement) index in the form of the ifIndex to be the 
>  most straightforward approach.  
>- Another small change is to combine the config and status tables; 
>  from my implementation experience, the fewer the tables, the 
>  less the work!  
>- Another thing I would suggest changing is to expand some of the 
>  "cryptic" encoded object into more user-friendly objects.  
>
>Rather than try to suggest a whole raft to specific changes to
>draft-kuhfeld-sonet-aps-mib-01, I've put together a complete 
>separate submission.  I'll leave it to the WG to decide how to 
>"merge" the two, but I'd suggest picking one as a starting point 
>and then pick it appart.  :^)
>
>	Ken
>
>================================================
>Ken Chapman                 Argon Networks, Inc.
>tel: +1-978-486-0665 x146   25 Porter Road
>fax: +1-978-486-9379        Littleton, MA  01460
>mailto:[email-masked]   http://www.Argon.com
>================================================

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies (formerly Bellcore)
Email  [email-masked]
Tel    732.758.5254
Fax    732.758.2269
Postal 331 Newman Springs Rd
       Red Bank, NJ 07701
       USA

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

---

From: Jim Kuhfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 18:56:34 -0700 (PDT)

Regarding the jeff/jim draft, a number of object level
enhancements have been added. For example, support was added for 
monitoring far end protection line failures. I will also attempt
to address Kaj's issues. If we submit an updated draft I will list 
all changes so we can track how well we are doing regarding reconciling 
differences of opinion.

There was also discussion of Ken's high level suggestions in our internal 
review group. Regarding the preference for indexing with InterfaceIndex 
rather than DisplayString, our consensus was to stick with DisplayString 
indexing. We hear repeated customer concerns regarding the difficulty 
of using arbitrary integer indexes, so DisplayString indexing begins 
to look more appealing. Our group also favored the use of separate group
configuration and group status tables.  Regarding cryptic encoded
objects, the apsCommandSwitch and apsCommandControl objects currently
encode a command and channel into a single Integer32. We can consider
adding a channel index to apsCommandEntry and supply only the command
in the individual objects.
  
Jeff's on vacation until late next week but I  believe he has some
comments he plans to put forward when he gets back.