Thank you again for the comments. I have just about completed the draft, so
I should be able to incorporate any changes necessary in version 10. See my
comments below prefixed by RB>>.
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:28 AM
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; IMcDonald@crt.xerox.com;
RCasterline@crt.xerox.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: Re: Print MIB 09
>>>>> Bergman, Ron writes:
Ron> I believe that all issues are now resolved and I estimate we will
Ron> have a revised MIB by early next week.
I did run the MIB through smidiff yesterday (a tool which computes the
changes between two MIB versions) and I found some things I wanted to
- There are some changes which, if you take the rules very strictly,
can turn compliant implementations to be non-compliant, even though
the document says:
This draft supercedes and replaces RFC 1759. However, a compliant
implementation of RFC 1759 is also compliant with this draft. The
following changes to RFC 1759 are included:
For example, prtConsoleLightIndex changed from Integer32 (0..65535)
to Integer32 (1..65535). Perhaps this just fixes a typo in the
original MIB - but it would be worthwhile to list changes such as
RB>> This was definitely a typo, since index values are never zero.
I will add this (and two other similar changes) to section 4.
Also, prtInputDefaultIndex changed from Integer32 (1..65535) to
Integer32 and prtMarkerColorantValue changed from (SIZE (0..63)) to
RB>> prtInputDefaultIndex was also a typo, since this object allows
-1 per the description clause. This has been corrected.
- The prtChannelIndex and prtAlertIndex both have a range
(1..2147483647) addded while all the other *Index objects seem to
prefer (1..65535). The wider range is from an architectural
standpoint better, but for consistency, the smaller range might be
better. What did people actually implement?
RB>> I will change both to the smaller value to be consistent.
- Should you not use InterfaceIndexOrZero in prtChannelIfIndex? The
description also refers to RFC 1213 where it should refer to the
IF-MIB, currently in RFC 2863. This creates a dependency but I think
this is fine as the IF-MIB is already at Draft.
RB>> Use of RFC 2863 was previously review by the WG and it was felt
this was likely to result in too many additional dependencies.
Use of InterfaceIndexOrZero also has similar problems. We would
prefer to not change since there have not been any implementation
problems reported in this area.
I have not a very strong feeling about this. I leave it to you to make
a wise decision.
-- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig <email@example.com> Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 <http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 14:58:27 EST