Re: 484 octet limit (was: new feature in smilint?)

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

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> [Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:]
> > Perhaps we should just declare 484 dead. :-)
> > 
> I thought we tried that a year or so ago when we were defining
> snmpEngineMaxMessageSize ???  If I remember correctly we were
> trying to go for 1472 or something like that as a minimum.
> I remember a lot of resistance...

I think you are right, unfortunately.  But I also think that in
practice we have a lot of MIB modules that simply won't work with
agents (or mamagers) that enforce such a limit.  Anything with a
sufficiently large OCTET STRING would cause such an agent or manager 
to break (cf. LongUtf8String from RFC 2287).  I know our documents
still say 484, but is it a problem worth worrying about in practice?
The MIB review guidelines document is silent on this point, and I
know that it's not something I look for in MIB reviews;  do I need
to mend my ways and/or fix the guidelines document?

//cmh