imported>Lowercase sigmabot III: Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol/Archive 1) (bot

2025-05-23T13:33:51Z

Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol/Archive 1) (bot

New page

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=mid|network=yes|network-importance=high}}
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=365|index=Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol/Archive index}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}

== Introduction to SNMP, with an overview of RFCs ==

RFC 3410 provides a valuable introduction to the SNMP framework, and an overview of the many RFCs relating to it.

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Simple Network Management Protocol]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813323233|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0t/12_0t3/feature/guide/Snmp3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029103140/http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-standard.html to http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-standard.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 02:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

== There should be a History section ==

Given how long SNMP has been around (32 years), there should be a History section in this article.

Resource: RFC 1067, from August 1988: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1067

-- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dan Griscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 14:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

==See also==
Can someone please fix the typos in the See also section? Siimulator and one other one affected by this "dash=, " thing, I can't see how to edit — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.169.1.237|217.169.1.237]] ([[User talk:217.169.1.237#top|talk]]) 19:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC) 

:Looks OK right now ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

== Atomic Operations ==

The article claims that for GetRequest and SetRequest PDUs that agent interactions are made atomically. Please provide a reference for these claims from the defining RFCs. At first blush they seem to be untrue. [[Special:Contributions/149.32.192.40|149.32.192.40]] ([[User talk:149.32.192.40|talk]]) 14:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Finding the reference for writes was trivial, but I couldn't find one for reads in the RFC's. I do think atomic results can actually be crucial for correctness, but my practical experience is rather limited, so I don't dare make any bolder claims :-). I've added the reference and added ''citation needed'' to the other claim. This is more visible than just a talk page section, and also alerts readers that the claim is disputed.[[User:Digital Brains|Digital Brains]] ([[User talk:Digital Brains|talk]]) 15:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick response. But your reference for writes (RFC1157) is a recommendation (should) not a requirement (must.) From personal experience, not very much is atomic in SNMP. I lean toward removing the atomic claims in both cases. It's an important concept, there's nothing saying the fill of a multi object get PDU is atomic and thus time coherent. At least that I know about. Apologies if I am wrong. [[Special:Contributions/149.32.192.40|149.32.192.40]] ([[User talk:149.32.192.40|talk]]) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Note that RFC 1157 predates RFC 2119, and that the word ''should'', correspondingly, is also not in all caps. So I think we can't now ''for sure'' whether it's a recommendation or a requirement. I suspect I read it as prescriptive precisely because it was not in all caps. I definitely would have interpreted it as a recommendation if it was in all caps. But yeah, I agree, it doesn't look good for the claim, I agree with removing it. [[User:Digital Brains|Digital Brains]] ([[User talk:Digital Brains|talk]]) 18:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
::::No wait, SNMPv3 does actually say it's mandatory. I'm not going to edit any more right now, but RFC 3416 page 22 says
::::{{blockquote|Each of these variable assignments occurs as if simultaneously with respect to all other assignments specified in the same request.}}
::::[[User:Digital Brains|Digital Brains]] ([[User talk:Digital Brains|talk]]) 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol - Revision history

imported>Lowercase sigmabot III: Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Simple Network Management Protocol/Archive 1) (bot