[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?

To: abierman@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:12:29 +0200
Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20020903121332.0b315d20@fedex.cisco.com> (message fromAndy Bierman on Tue, 03 Sep 2002 12:32:01 -0700)
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020902170459.0b307938@fedex.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020903121332.0b315d20@fedex.cisco.com>

>>>>> Andy Bierman writes:

Andy> I still think it's the wrong thing to do, but SNMP is plagued by
Andy> so many CLRs, it's best to just limit what we try to use it for.
Andy> The lamest part is that these CLRs are there to benefit the 3 to
Andy> 6 toolkit developers on the planet, at the expense of all the
Andy> MIB readers, MIB writers, and MIB developers.

While I understand your frustration, I think such statements are not
fair. We started to use the Counter64 data type for purposes it was
not designed for since we were unable to solve the Unsigned64 /
Integer64 problem for years. What people now consider to be CLRs are
just symptoms and the underlying problem which we failed to solve.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

References:
- Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?
  - From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
- Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?
  - From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?
Next by Date: Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?
Previous by thread: Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread