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

Re: BITS

HI,

Sure, one could "remove bit definitions", but it provides no real value.
Likewise, in compliance specifications, but what does it mean,
and what are you saying about interoperability when you
"remove bits in a compliance specification".
What value do you achieve?

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > > From: "Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>
> > > To: <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:27 AM
> > > Subject: BITS
> > ...
> > > RFC2578 says that the BITS construct is a collection of values
> > > starting at 0. RFC2578 section 9 says that BITS named-values can
> > > be removed. So, I can remove bit 1's named-value legally. Can
> > > the named-value at position 0 be removed legally?
> > ...
> > 
> > I'd say "yes".
> 
> I agree.  Note that section 9 refers to removing bit positions in
> syntax refinements.  It is certainly legal to remove bit position
> zero in a syntax refinement that is part of a compliance statement
> or a capabilities statement.  It is less clear whether it's legal to
> do this in an object definition by refinining a TC with a base type
> of BITS because that seems to contradict RFC 2578 Section 7.1.4, but
> I would be inclined to allow it in a MIB review, since it could
> be useful does not do any obvious harm.
> 
> //cmh
Regards,
/david t. perkins