Re: Guidelines Section 4.6.1.6 (BITS construct)

[Michael Kirkham <mikek@muonics.com>]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > But, do we want to say this is RECOMMENDED, or would that be another
> > unwelcome CLR?
>
> Since I've not heard anything pro or con, I'll just propose the
> following very minimal change to the existing text to bring it
> into  compliance with RFC 2578:
>
>    The BITS construct is described in RFC 2578 Section 7.1.4.  It
>    represents an enumeration of named bits.  The bit positions in a TC
>    or object definition whose SYNTAX is of this type MUST start at 0 and
>    SHOULD be contiguous.
>
> i.e, s/MUST be contiguous/SHOULD be contiguous/

My only issue with the original text was that it was contrary to what was
permitted by 2578.  I have no opinion on whether or not it should be
recommended that new bits start at the next octet.  So, the new text is
fine with me.

--
Michael Kirkham
www.muonics.com