PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Print MIB 09

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> RE: Print MIB 09

PMP> RE: Print MIB 09

From: Bergman, Ron (
Date: Thu Nov 15 2001 - 15:06:39 EST

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "PMP> RE: Print MIB 09 [bad ranges on three objects]"


    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>>.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Juergen Schoenwaelder []
    Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:28 AM
    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
      this explicitely.

    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
      (SIZE (0..255)).

    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
    <>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
    Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
    Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 14:58:27 EST