Subject: RE: Process id in UDP/TCP mibs?

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:29:50 -0400

Obviously that is less than desirable, but just because some platforms
may be unable to provide useful information doesn't mean we just
deprecate it for all. Implementers of SNMP agents for this MIB will thus
need to decide whether they return a value for this item or not, and if
they do what caveats may exist for it. The text already has "or zero if
there is no such process."

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:20 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Process id in UDP/TCP mibs?
> 
> Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > It seems to me that having some process identified with a endpoint
> > (socket) has value. Yes, it may not be the actual process 
> now using the
> > endpoint, but it still provides some meaningful information 
> (such as the
> > process that originally created the endpoint).
> 
> Even after that process has exited?
> And later, when some other process has been assigned that process id?
> 
>     Erik
> 
> > I'd rather see the description change, perhaps to something like:
> > 
> >               "The system's process ID for a process associated with
> >                this endpoint, or zero if there is no such process.
> >                This may be the process that created the endpoint
> >                or one of the processes that is presently associated
> >                with the endpoint. This value is expected to be the
> >                same as HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrSWRunIndex or
> >                SYSAPPL-MIB::sysApplElmtRunIndex for some row in the
> >                appropriate tables."
> > 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:23:53 -0400

Yes, by all means improve the description of the item. I had already
suggested a rewording, but it can definitely use more tweaking.

I guess there is also the question as to what to return in cases where
there are either multiple processes "using" the endpoint or where the
process no longer exists:
A) Returning one of the processes (i.e., the process that created or
last attached to the endpoint) is useful.
B) Returning a process that may no longer exists is fine too, as long as
the PID isn't reused by another process (some operating systems don't
recycle PIDs or only do so after a very long time).

I would argue that it is up to the implementer, perhaps based on what is
possible for the platform.

- Bernie

> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:39 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> But that text would at least need to be ammended to include
>   - if there are multiple processes
>   - if the process can not be determined (for instance, because there 
> might have been multiple processes in the life of the udp endpoint)
> 
>     Erik
>