RE: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vlanid-tc-mib-00.tx t

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> 
> Two things:
> 
> 1. "TEXTUAL CONVENTION" should be "TEXTUAL-CONVENTION".
> 
I clearly did not yet do a MIB compile.
But it is good to see people notice!

> 2. Probably a pointless nit, but why use Integer32 rather 
> than Unsigned32 for types that have explicitly non-negative
> ranges?
>
Aha... a few reasons:

- left over from earlier on where we were thinking to use -1
  a a wild card
- To potentially allow RFC2613 and RFC2674 to pick up this
  common definition when they revise or advance the documents.

This brings out the fact that RFC2674 already defines a TC
with a descriptor of VlanId, and so probably we should not do
that (in fact our guidelines say we cannot). One (we) could
wonder/discuss if however this time it does make sense to
keep the duplicate.

Thanks for the review and comments.
Bert
 
> --
> Michael Kirkham
> www.muonics.com
>