Subject: Re: DLSw traps?

From: [email-masked] (Shannon Nix)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:52:09 EST

Peter,

Several rambling comments on traps, MIBs and such.

1.  Usually TRAPs are defined as part of a MIB module.  So the question
    would be to include them in the DLSw MIB definition or not.

2.  They could be included but allowed to be optional using several
    techniques:

    a.  Specify several "conformance groups" in the MIB definition.
        This would allow different levels of function for 
        conformant implementations.

    b.  Define a MIB-specific variable to enable/disable traps
        (or use the one in the interfaces group) and specify
        that implementations may not choose to allow a SET to
        enabled.

3.  HOWEVER.... If we use GA info in our traps, do we need more
    than one trap type?  It seems that the different conditions
    could be distinguished using the NV codepoints (probable cause
    etc.).  Wouldn't we just need to define some DLSw specific 
    code-points?

4.  I personally favor:
    a)  Defining (a) standard trap(s) as an OPTION to the 
        implementor.
    b)  Including the GA info ala the contribution by Robert Moore.
    c)  Extending the NV codepoint architecture to describe DLSw
        exception conditions.

Rgds, Shannon