Subject: [Disman] another error in the examples in rfc3877

From: Michael Thatcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:12:05 -0800

in section 6.1, the values given for
alarmModelSpecificPointer and  ituAlarmGenericModel are, respectively,
"ituAlarmEntry.x.y" and "alarmModelEntry.x.y".

However, alarmModelSpecificPointer and ituAlarmGenericModel
are type RowPointer so they should point to the 1st available object in
the row which are, respectively, ituAlarmEventType and
alarmModelNotificationId.

miket

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:38:13 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Michael Thatcher" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:12 PM
> Subject: [Disman] another error in the examples in rfc3877
>
> in section 6.1, the values given for alarmModelSpecificPointer and
>  ituAlarmGenericModel are, respectively, "ituAlarmEntry.x.y" and
> "alarmModelEntry.x.y".
> are type RowPointer so they should point to the 1st available object
> in the row which are, respectively, ituAlarmEventType and alarmModelNotificationId.
...

My recollection (which may be faulty) was that this was deliberate, to
illustrate the concept of the pointer, rather than the detail.  While
"ituAlarmEventType.x.y" might be more correct, I'm not sure that
it's more enlightening.  But I'd love to hear from the authors and
folks who have (tried) to implement this spec.

Randy

---

From: Michael Thatcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:16:32 -0800

well the rfc says it's an "example".  I expect the example to use valid 
values unless otherwise documented.   Particularly when someone (like a 
test group) may use it to generate tests for validity. 

miket