On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 17:17 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote: > Whatever we agree upon, I think we should stick to *one* > directive for this purpose.
I'm not going to make a great fuss about this issue. I introduced a second directive because I didn't think that "disableAuthorization" was particularly meaningful to a typical network administrator - it's much more of a security-orientated description. But it didn't feel my place to *remove* Wes' original choice - hence adding a parallel alternative. Traps and Notifications are sufficiently widely used that they're effectively interchangeable in normal conversation. (In much the same way as MIB objects and MIB instances). So I don't think we'd be gaining much by insisting on using the strictly correct term. And I personally prefer the shorter name - which is also more consistent with the other snmptrapd directives. (Note that linkUpDownNotifications is an *agent* thing). But I'm not too bothered either way. I'll see what the general consensus is tomorrow, and document things based on that. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
