I know I'm probably showing a great deal of SNMP vx, SMI vx, ASN.1 naivety, ...
and I know you are telling me compiler writers have already shipped an
interpretation... still, I'd like to see where 'not-accessible' is actually
defined for SNMP and how it leads to an interpretation that the index to a table
entry cannot be considered "interesting information".
IBM Printing Systems
Ira McDonald <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 06/02/99 11:54:05 AM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, email@example.com
cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Subject: Re: PMP> prtAlertIndex as defined in
Hi Harry and Mike,
Thanks for explaining the conflict, Mike. Actually, Harry, the
RFC 1759 MIB never did compile under an RFC 190x (1996 SMIv2)
compliant compiler without changing the MAX-ACCESS of 'prtAlertIndex'
to 'read-only' or deleting the object from the Alert trap
bindings (it never should have been there in the first place
- it's value is included in the instance qualifiers of all
the other bound objects).
Now the 1999 version of SMIv2 (RFC 2578) is also more explicit
that index objects (SMI calls them 'auxiliary' objects) should
NOT be accessible. Thus our problem...
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc