Subject: Re: docsDevEvThrottleInhibited confusion

From: "Mike St. Johns" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 14:12:05 -0700

Hi Bob...

No conflict, just possibly weak wording.  If the box can't send traps set 
this object to true.  That occurs if you don't have a destination for the 
traps or if traps are otherwise inhibited.  I kind of find it hard to get 
your meaning out of reading this object.   I read it as  "no (syslog or 
trap) destinations being set".   To read it your way it would have to be 
"no syslog or no trap destinations"  given normal grammar rules.

Mike

At 09:40 AM 4/30/99 -0700, Bob Himlin wrote:
>docsDevEvThrottleInhibited OBJECT-TYPE
>         SYNTAX      TruthValue
>         MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>         STATUS      current
>         DESCRIPTION
>             "If true(1), trap and syslog transmission is currently
>              inhibited due to thresholds and/or the current setting of
>              docsDevEvThrottleAdminStatus. In addition, this is set to
>              true(1) if transmission is inhibited due to no
>              syslog (docsDevEvSyslog) or trap (docsDevNmAccessEntry)
>              destinations having been set."
>         ::= { docsDevEvent 4 }
>
>This object description conflicts with itself.  It says it is to be set true
>(1) if trap AND syslog transmission is inhibited due to throttling.  It also
>says it is to be set true (1) if no syslog OR trap destination is
>configured.  This means it is possible to configure a CM with a syslog
>server and no trap destination, and the object will read true (inhibited)
>even though syslog events are not necessarily inhibited.  Or would they be?
>Same thing if a trap destination is configured but no syslog.  I would
>suggest the last sentence "no syslog or trap" be changed to "neither syslog
>nor trap".  Or comments on a different legal interpretation of this object.
>
>Bob Himlin
>TurboNet Communications

---

From: "Bob Himlin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:50:43 -0700

You give the example of the CM not being able to send traps.  You left out
whether or not a SYSLOG server was supplied in the DHCP response.  Are you
suggesting that regardless of whether a SYSLOG server was supplied, the
correct value of the object is true if a trap destination is not configured?
So, the object could claim that traps and syslog are inhibited when in fact
only one of them is inhibited?

For the flip side of the coin, suppose a SYSLOG server is not supplied in
the DHCP response, but the TRAP destination IS properly configured using
docsDevNmAccessTable.  In this case, what would the correct value of the
object be?

Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mike St. Johns
Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 2:12 PM
To: Bob Himlin; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: docsDevEvThrottleInhibited confusion

Hi Bob...

Mike

---

From: "Mike St. Johns" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 16:38:46 -0700

I think you're going way too far to misunderstand this.

Think about it.  Read the first sentence of the description.  Then take the 
remaining sentence in that context.  Also read the descriptions for the 
other two tables/objects you cited.

If the device can send traps or syslog, this value is false.  If it is 
currently inhibited, or there are no destinations to which it can send 
traps or syslog - this value is true.    If it is not currently inhibited - 
and there is at least one of syslog or trap destinations set (via ANY path 
- DHCP or SNMP)  this value is this value is false.

>correct value of the object is true if a trap destination is not configured?

No.  If the syslog destination is supplied... the device can obviously send 
notifications.

>only one of them is inhibited?

No.  Inhibition is per box, not per one or the other.

>docsDevNmAccessTable.  In this case, what would the correct value of the

Again, assuming that sending is not currently inhibited due to throttling - 
false.