In the "for what it's worth" category (which we all know coming from me
is not a hell of a lot!), Lloyd had me check the current internet draft
for MIB syntax before it was submitted. I found several problems --
many of them related to TCs. The fact is, that while errors are easy to
induce, they are also easy to find using a decent MIB compiler like
JK Martin wrote:
> > >For the sake of sanity, let's define a TC (say, StaticCodeSet, or
> > >something like that) and use that as the SYNTAX for those OCTET STRING
> > >values pertaining to this proposal. That is, do NOT simply define such
> > >objects as OCTET STRING and expect the reader sees the attendant verbage
> > >on localization. A specific TC for this purpose is much cleaner all
> > >the way around.
> > You are right that it would be better to have a TC, but there was concern
> > that making such edits might include some mistakes and it would take
> > a more time to do, delaying the forwarding of the document.
> Hmm... That argument really doesn't hold much water, IMHO. Someone's
> concerned about adding text because they might mess it up? This situation
> is certainly no different than any other editing scenario.
> Please, let's define a TC and use it where appropriate.
-- Matt King Opinions are my own and Staff Engineer are not necessarily Lexmark International, Inc. those of Lexmark firstname.lastname@example.org