Re: [Isms] SNMP over (D)TLS draft available for review - Group compliance statements for notifications

["Donati Andrew-MGIA0477" <adonati at motorola.com>]

Wes,
I see what you are saying and actually vote for them to stay mandatory
as I believe that they are important to all network administrators.  I
wanted to clarify where it stood because there was some discussion on
making it an optional implementation when the topic was initially
brought up.
- Andy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:wjhns1 at hardakers.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:07 PM
To: Donati Andrew-MGIA0477
Cc: Wes Hardaker; isms at ietf.org
Subject: Re: SNMP over (D)TLS draft available for review - Group
compliance statements for notifications

>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:18:43 -0400, "Donati Andrew-MGIA0477"
<adonati at motorola.com> said:

DA> Yes.  They are indeed listed in the in the 'MANDATORY-GROUPs' 
DA> clause, but was looking for additional 'GROUP' and 'DESCRIPTION' 
DA> clauses for each group.  The 'DESCRIPTION' clause can contain 
DA> information on whether or not the group is mandatory or optional to 
DA> implement, as illustrated in rfc2580.

Ah, so you're not asking for clarification.  You want the notifications
to be removed from the mandatory clause.  If you read 5.4.1 of RFC2580
carefully you'll see that as-is the MIB describes conformance
requirements perfectly: the notifications are required.

We'll see what the results of the discussion are with respect to whether
others agree with you that they should be optional and removed from the
MANDATORY-GROUPS list.  (David, eg, seems to think they should stay).
--
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions