Re: [netmod] operational knobs

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:50:24AM +0100, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Phil Shafer" <phil at juniper.net>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> > Cc: "NETMOD Working Group" <netmod at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] operational knobs 
> >
> > "Randy Presuhn" writes:
> > >Adding them would have been a change to the protocol's grammar,
> > >which would have been a non-starter for several reasons:
> > 
> > Adding new verbs would not have been so destructive.  A MIB variables
> > listing known verbs would have allowed a device to advertise to the
> > application the verbs it supported, and verb-less clients would
> > simply have ignored the advanced options available on enlghtened
> > devices.
> 
> I disagree.  The *grammar* of the SNMP protocol has no provision for this
> kind of extensibility.   There simply is no way to add a new verb without
> changing the grammar of the protocol.  I am certain this limitation was
> deliberate; CMIP, developed during the same period, made extensive
> use of ASN.1's extinsibility mechanisms (ANY DEFINED BY).

This is really off topic, but RFC 1157, RFC 1901, and RFC 3412 all use
"ANY -- e.g., PDUs". Yes, it is not ANY DEFINED BY but if people would
have wanted to add create/delete operations, the grammar would not
have been the show stopper.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>