Subject: [ipcdn] FW: DisplayString or SnmpAdminString for an ASCII-only object?

From: Patrick Michael-LZZ007 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 18:51:13 -0400

IPCDN group:

Any opinions on whether we should keep the docsQosParamSetServiceClassName object as a 
DisplayString or change it to an SnmpAdminString in order to match the modern conventions for human-readable strings?  

-mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:00 PM
To: Patrick Michael-LZZ007
Cc: Murwin William-LWM008; Woundy, Richard
Subject: RE: DisplayString or SnmpAdminString for an ASCII-only object?

I think we should take this one to the mailing list, with Bert's comments
and your suggestion.

Note that they are using SnmpAdminString for service class names (e.g.
pktcSigServiceClassNameUS) in
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-01.txt>
.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Michael-LZZ007 [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:05 AM
To: Woundy, Richard
Cc: Murwin William-LWM008
Subject: RE: DisplayString or SnmpAdminString for an ASCII-only object?

Let's keep DisplayString, with the references as recommended as Bert.
This object represents an on-the-wire field required by spec to be printable
ascii, and is more than just text for human convenience. 

-mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 7:29 PM
To: Woundy, Richard; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
Cc: Patrick Michael-LZZ007; Murwin William-LWM008
Subject: RE: DisplayString or SnmpAdminString for an ASCII-only object?

Inline

But first... would it not be better to post all this communication/email to
the IPCDN WG list?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Woundy, Richard [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: woensdag 7 mei 2003 0:00
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
> Cc: 'Michael Patrick (E-mail)'; 'William Murwin (E-mail)'; 
> Woundy,Richard
> Subject: DisplayString or SnmpAdminString for an ASCII-only object?
> 
> Bert,
> 
> What is the preferred definition for a MIB object that represents a 
> DOCSIS parameter that is limited to the ASCII character set in the 
> DOCSIS specification?
> (a) SYNTAX DisplayString

You realize they are printibale ASCII only, right? It is not just ASCII.
Also, the max size if (0..255).

If the object is indeed limited to that character set in the DOCSIS spec,
then it seems to make sense to use that TC. I would then make a specific
note in the DESCRIPTION clause about such limitation in the DOCSIS spec,
with maybe a REFERENCE clause to the specific documentation.

Now is this object meant for Human consumption?
Is a Human ever expected to change it?
Cause in that case, they may not be happy with the limited character set.

> (b) SYNTAX SnmpAdminString, and object DESCRIPTION text that limits 
> the agent to the ASCII character set
> (c) SYNTAX SnmpAdminstring, and compliance DESCRIPTION text
> that limits the agent to the ASCII character set
> 
If you do one of those latter two, then option C (in my view) might be best.
It allows to extend in the future by creating just a new compliance
statement.

Hope this helps.
Bert
> -- Rich
> 
> P.S. Thanks for checking on the VLAN ID question.
> 
_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn