Hi,
[posting as a contributor]
Tom mentions that we should not use the term entity here, because it
conflicts with the SNMP usage of that term. Since this is a MIB module
designed for use in an SNMP environment, that is a really good point.
It would hurt us to have conflicts between the terminolo
This is also tied up with the scalar/table question. If we had a scalar MIB
module, then much of my difficulty would vanish.
If we keep the table, then it should not be of entities. As you point out,
SNMPv3 has given the word 'entity' a specific meaning and I think it wrong to
re-use the word to
mm
Rainer's explanation shows me why I have not encountered this; it is only
present in Windows servers and then only, if I read it aright, because Windows
has not done a satisfactory implementation yet. The question then is, how much
do we adapt to this behaviour of Windows?
I find your rem
Hi,
Rainer has it right. I agree that a simple note as Rainer suggests will
do it.
Thanks,
Chris
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
David,
I went through my notes. Retaining PRI as is is actually a charter item:
---
Reviews have shown that there are very few similarities between
