Subject: [Isms] unknownTransportModels

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:38:32 -0500

Hi,

Time to starrt some discussions here. 
Is anybody out there????

I am closing in on th enext revision of the transport subsystem
document, and there are a few questions which have been raised that I
am considering how to address.

RFC3412 (the messaging subsystem) has an unknownSecurityModels that
counts the number of packets **received** that were dropped because
the security model (presumably extracted from the incoming message)
was unknown. This counter is never incremented for outgoing messages.

An unknownTransportModels counter would probably never get
incremented. For outgoing messages, this is an implementation
debugging issue that does not need to be exposed in a mib module. For
incoming messages, we would never get the message if a transport model
doesn't exist to support the underlying transport, and we certainly
would'nt get it if the underlying transport doesn't exist.

So I don't think an unknownTransportModels makes protocol sense.

Am I overlooking any scenarios where this counter would be useful?

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:00:00 +0100

> So I don't think an unknownTransportModels makes protocol sense.

I can't think of a use case for such a counter.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		 {International|Jacobs} University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany