RE: Omission from reviewer's guide: one hour rule

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

Mmm... I thought i had mentioned several times allready
that it is OK with me to specify just Counter64 if
that is what a WG thinks makes sense. Certainly if 
some of the counters in their MIB module are Counter64
anyway, then I have no problem if they make them all
counter64. 

If the roll-over of a counter32 is LT one hour, I 
would tell them they MUST use Counter64.

That leaves the question if they should also add Counter32
equivakents to support old SNMPv1, which I would say we
can now relax becuase the SNMPv3 is at full STD.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: woensdag 5 februari 2003 8:15
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Omission from reviewer's guide: one hour rule
> 
> 
> On 28 Jan 2003, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote (on
> comp.protocols.snmp):
> > > The RFC 2578 mentions that one should use Counter64 only 
> if Counter32
> > > would have wrapped in an hour. Why is this so?
> > 
> > There are recently been some debate about this in the IETF 
> and I guess
> > this rule does apply in this form anymore. There will be a 
> MIB reviewer
> > guidelines document soon which will address among many 
> other things this
> > issue. In fact, there is already a published IETF MIB in 
> RFC 3289 which
> > solely uses Counter64 and I guess we will see more of them in the
> > future.
> 
> I missed that one.  It was not on my radar screen :)
> 
> //cmh
> 
>