Subject: resubmit

From: "Ted Brunner 503.627.1317" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:32:18 -0700

------- Forwarded Message
Date: Tue,  9 Jun 98 12:20:22 pdt
From: David Perkins <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: split ifmib rfc 
To: Ted Brunner <[email-masked]>, Gary Hanson <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
X-Mailer: Chameleon V0.05, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc.
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Gary,

Sounds like reasonable suggestions. 

On the legality of using a TC instead of a base type. This is perfectly
legal as long as the semantics are not changed.

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:48:42 -0700 (PDT)  Gary Hanson wrote:
>
>Ted,
>
>Thanks for the update.
>
>With the splitting of ifStackTable out to a separate MIB document,
>to be rolled at the proposed standard state, I think it would be a
>good idea to reconsider the legality of changing (or should I say,
>clarifying) the SYNTAX of the INDEX objects of the ifStackTable from
>Integer32 to InterfaceIndexOrZero.
>
>Note that during the evolution from RFC 1213 to RFC 1573, the SYNTAX
>of ifIndex itself was changed from INTEGER to InterfaceIndex, which 
>in RFC 1573 was simply an Integer32.  This was done, presumably, to
>take advantage of the new textual convention concept.
>
>Later, in RFC 2233, the InterfaceIndex textual convention's SYNTAX
>was sub-typed, from a Integer32 to Integer32 (1..2147483647), and a
>new InterfaceIndexOrZero textual convention was added with the range
>Integer32 (0..2147483647).  This second change was done, presumably, 
>to clarify that negative values are NEVER acceptable, and that zero
>values are SOMETIMES acceptable, depending on the semantics of the
>individual objects.
>
>I contend that changing the SYNTAX of INDEX objects from Integer32
>to InterfaceIndexOrZero, although technically disallowed by RFC
>1902, should be considered just as desirable as those previous
>changes, and should be given special dispensation, especially given
>that it clarifies how the objects are to be used, that no (correct)
>agent implementations are likely to be adversely affected.
>
>Comments?
>
>By the way, would the new MIB be called "IF-STACK-MIB" with a module
>name of "ifStackMIB"?  And would the new inverse stack table be
>called "ifInverseStackTable" and its attribute descriptors each 
>start with "ifInverseStack"?  Those would be my suggestions....
>
>Regards,
>Gary
>
Regards,
/[email-masked], David T. Perkins
Date: 06/09/98, Time: 12:20:22

------- End of Forwarded Message