Subject: RE: ARC + COND

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:32:18 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> From [email-masked] Fri Mar 23 10:16:10 PST 2001
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Ayers, Mike" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Lauren Heintz'" <[email-masked]>,
>         "Ayers, Mike"
> 	 <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: ARC + COND
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 12:17:03 -0600

(I trimmed the CCs - it's kinda pointless to CC people that are
already on the WG mailing list.)

...
> 	The problems of which you speak are very real.  They are, however,
> generally problems with the RowStatus TC.  In that sense, I would prefer to
> fix the problem than work around it.  It was my (tenuous) understanding that
> RowStatus was to be addressed in some way in Minneapolis, but I lost track
> of the details.
...

The eos WG is talking about some of these issues.  Whether
the fix(es) will be at the level of the TCs or new PDU
types is just one of the considerations.  The charter is at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/eos-charter.html

If you think the representation of the underlying models needs
to be more explicit in the MIB definitions, then you might also
want to speak up in the sming WG. Its charter is at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/sming-charter.html

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]
 Voice: +1 408 546-1006  BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 Fax:   +1 408 965-0359  2141 North First Street
 http://www.bmc.com/     San José, California 95131  USA
 -------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 -------------------------------------------------------