Subject: Disman issue Event-02

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT)

Disman issue Event-02:

> I would put in a cautionary note about the conversion to SMIv1 that is
> pon page 2.  The objects in large systems are increasingly 64bit
> counters.  A 32 bit counter for much of the work that I do day to day
> and to which this MIB might be meaningfully applied would be of no value.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]     http://www.bmc.com/
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:09:47 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:30:30 -0400
> From: Rob Frye <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Disman issue Event-02
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
...
> I think if we know we would have to do some rework, it means we really
> know the MIB is broken now.  We should (*sigh*) bite the bullet and
> put in the proper support in the MIB now before going to RFC with it.
...

I'm no longer convinced that any substantial rework is necessary.

If an implementation of this MIB were pointed at a 64-bit counter, would
anything break?  Would it be sufficient to remind implementers that this
thing could be pointed at 64-bit counters as well as 32-bit ones?

Since deltas are without magnitude, they'd work for both signed and
unsigned 64-bit thingies.  However, they might be problematic for
expressions.