Subject: more thoughts on the event mib

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:05:57 +0200

Since I did not receive any response to my previous comments on the
event MIB, I will assume that everyone agrees to what I have written
down. So let me go a bit further...

I believe that the trigger/event/action model is a good one. However,
as the MIB is written now, we have common parameters for the triggers
defined in the mteTriggerTable and more trigger type specific
parameters in separate tables. The decision what goes where was made
by looking at the triggers we currently have in this MIB.

The point I am raising now is that there may be additional triggers
that do not share what we believe right now are common parameters.
For example, I can imagine a trigger for (received) notifications, or
even combined notifications. I can also imagine a periodic trigger or
a calendar based trigger. (Yes, this means to merge the scheduling MIB
into a more generic event MIB.)

I believe that generalizing the event MIB (and probably merging the
scheduling MIB into the event MIB) is the right way to go. However,
doing so requires to reconsider what we currently see as common
parameters. Comments? Everyone agrees?
							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:42:59 -0400

>down. So let me go a bit further...

Equally valid assumptions:

	Nobody cared.

	Nobody understood.

	Nobody had time to respond.

	Everybody thought dealing with it was somebody else's job.

>parameters. Comments? Everyone agrees?

I believe if we try to do that at this late date the Event MIB will be way
too delayed to the point of never being finished.  I know people who want
to implement it now and are waiting for it to go to Proposed.  It's already
taken too long.  It should have been finished.  Every time I thought it was
done I'd get another batch of last minute comments and another major round
of delay.

It's time to stop making major changes and ship what we've got.

The only significant change I believe we should consider is whether
limiting additional objects in the notifications to association with the
event is sufficiently simplifying to be worth the change and the loss of
flexibility.

Other than that we should be fixing major bugs, not looking at how to
reorganize the whole set of MIBs.

If the way we've done it and scheduling is not right, throw them out and
redo them for the next cycle.  Don't prolong this cycle any further.  If we
were a company depending on shipping products we'd be out of business.

	Bob