[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BITS
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, David T. Perkins wrote:
> 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?
Here is an example. In the SONET-MIB (RFC 3592) there exists the
following object definition:
sonetMediumLoopbackConfig OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX BITS {
sonetNoLoop(0),
sonetFacilityLoop(1),
sonetTerminalLoop(2),
sonetOtherLoop(3) }
MAX-ACCESS read-write
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The current loopback state of the SONET/SDH interface. The
values mean:
sonetNoLoop
Not in the loopback state. A device that is not
capable of performing a loopback on this interface
shall always return this value.
sonetFacilityLoop
The received signal at this interface is looped back
out through the corresponding transmitter in the return
direction.
sonetTerminalLoop
The signal that is about to be transmitted is connected
to the associated incoming receiver.
sonetOtherLoop
Loopbacks that are not defined here."
::= { sonetMediumEntry 8 }
The ETHER-WIS compliance statement has the following OBJECT clause:
OBJECT sonetMediumLoopbackConfig
SYNTAX BITS {
sonetNoLoop(0),
sonetFacilityLoop(1)
}
MIN-ACCESS read-only
DESCRIPTION
"Write access is not required, nor is support for values
other than sonetNoLoop(0) and sonetFacilityLoop(1)."
What does this achieve? It says that an implementation is not required
to allow bit positions other than the ones listed to be set, even if
write access is alowed. Seems useful to me.
//cmh
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: BITS
- From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
- References:
- Re: BITS
- From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>