Gauge32 as an INDEX (was: Index values of zero)

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 12:04:31 -0800 (PST)
> > From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> > To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: Index values of zero
> > In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15583D7A5@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10212291159550.26846-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
> ...
> >    The above is a direct translation of the INDEX rules in RFC 2578
> >    Section 7.7 up to and including bullet (1).  Although not forbidden
> >    by RFC 2578,  using objects of type Gauge32 in an INDEX clause is NOT
> >    RECOMMENDED under these guidelines.
> ...
> 
> What is so dangerous about the use of Gauge32 as an
> index that it should warrant a "NOT RECOMMENDED"?

The original text treated Gauge32 and Unsigned32 as synonymous, and
both Juergen and Bert voiced objections on the grounds that the special
semantics attached to Gauge32 make it an inappropriate SYNTAX for a
variable that appears in an INDEX clause.  That is, it was perceived as
something that you SHOULD NOT do.  I had to agree with that, because I
can't think of a situation where I would want to use Gauge32 in an INDEX
clause other than in a MIB module that was translated from SMIv1.

//cmh