Re: draft-ietf-ospf-mib-update-04

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Chapman, Ken writes:

Ken> I am now thinking that the MIBs or SNMP WG should help us
Ken> understand this particular case, since I now see a possibility
Ken> that we CAN just change the syntax to Integer32 (0..2147483647)
Ken> without breaking any SMIv2 rules.  I just reread the first
Ken> paragraph in clause 10:

[...]

Ken> In this case, since the original syntax would cause a basic
Ken> encoding error with unpredictable results, there could be no
Ken> "interoperability" using a negative value.  Therefore, fixing it
Ken> actually leads to BETTER interoperability!  So, is it, or is it
Ken> not OK to make these changes?

I think that adding the range restriction is the right thing to do.
You simply can't encode a negative number in an OID sub-identifier and
hence the range restrictions is just a clarification which makes it
obvious that this is the case.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>