Subject: [OPSAWG] Comments and questions on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-snmp-engineid-discovery-00.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:06:59 +0200

1. This standard seems to update RFC 3411. I suggest this to be
mentioned in the document header and in the Abstract

2. Section 3.2:

 The SnmpEngineID textual convention defines that an snmpEngineID
   value MUST be between 5 and 12 octets long.  

Is not this between 5 and 32? According to the TC definition only in
length format 2) the size is 12, but we are using variable length format
3) lor the localEngineID. 

3. In the IANA considerations - should the proposed new registry apply
only for enterprise ID zero? 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
(speaking as contributor)

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:22:24 +0200

> mentioned in the document header and in the Abstract

Added in my xml sources.
 
> 3) lor the localEngineID. 

Good catch. I have fixed this in my xml sources.

> only for enterprise ID zero? 

I am surprised by the question since the registry is for format values
in general. The specific allocation 6 happens to use the enterprise ID
zero but that surely should not be imposed on other future
formats. Why did the text lead you to believe that this is only for
allocations that use enterprise ID zero? The text in the IANA
considerations section just talks about an enterprise number followed
by a format value.

/js

PS: Thanks for taking the time to review the document.

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>