Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-04.txt>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:04:21 -0400 (EDT)

>>The function of the pingCtlFrequency object is unclear to me.
>>Is it the time between individual pings when retries are required?
>>(I suspect not, because of the pingCtlTimeout object)  Or does it
>>specify the time period between when  pingCtlProbeCount  pings
>>(with pingCtlTimeout between each ping) is done?   Is the
>>pingCtlFrequency object the mechanism for doing the periodic
>>ping polling?
>
>Your second guess is correct. I will clarify the text.

Not complaining about the pingCtlFrequency object, because periodic
ping polling is something I asked for, but I recall objections to 
periodic ping polling because of it's possible mis-use and detri-
mental effects on the network.  If others on the working group still 
have concerns about mis-use of periodic ping polling, I could align
with the elimination of the pingCtlFrequency.  It appears the 
initiation of a ping test can be done by triggering the pingCtl-
AdminStatus with the DISMAN-SCHEDULE-MIB, so the same effect
could be achieved where the implementors wanted to provide this
feature.

>>I believe that changing the pingCtlTrapGeneration object from an
>>INTEGER type to a BITS type would make it more versatile.
>
>Good suggestion. I have made the change as well to the traceroute
>MIB. When doing this I added the following statement:
>
>  "The none(0) option can't be selected if any of the
>  other BITS options are selected."

Perhaps eliminating the bit setting for "none" would be simpler?
Then if no bits were set, then no traps would be sent.

Regards,
--Alan