RE: Enumerated INTEGER - start with zero or one (0 or 1) ?

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

basically OK with me... although I would rather have a reference
to an example in an RFC than in an I-D.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 31 december 2002 19:13
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Enumerated INTEGER - start with zero or one (0 or 1) ?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> > > Here is what I put into the latest under-construction
> > > version of the Guidelines document:
> [ ... ]
> > Looks good Mike, My proposal is to add a line that states:
> >      Such a valid reason should be documented in the 
> DESCRIPTION clause.
> 
> OK, how about this:
> 
>    - For integer-valued enumerations:
> 
>      - INTEGER is REQUIRED;
>      - Integer32, Unsigned32, and Gauge32 MUST NOT be used.
> 
>    Note that RFC 2578 recommends (but does not require) that integer-
>    valued enumerations start at 1 and be numbered contiguously.  This
>    recommendation SHOULD be followed unless there is a valid reason to
>    do otherwise, e.g., to match the values assumed by 
> external data, and
>    in such cases the reason for the deviation SHOULD be 
> documented.  For
>    a good example see the SyslogSeverity TC [SYSLOG-MIB].
> 
>                              .
>                              .
>                              .
> [SYSLOG-MIB]
>             Pape, B., "Syslog Device Configuration MIB", <draft-ietf-
>             syslog-device-mib-01.txt>, work in progress.
> 
> > Although... is that adding another CLR ??
> 
> It is, but ...
> 
> > Well, it is a a lowercase "should".... ;-)
> 
> ... I think that an uppercase SHOULD is OK with the example (it was
> the subject of a question by Joan Cucchiara that showed up on the
> mibs@ops.ietf.org list last August, and the words about matching
> the values assumed by external data were adapted from Andy Bierman's
> recent message on this subject).
> 
> Mike
> 
>