DateAndTime TC oversight in RFC 2579

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

The issue of using a defval for DateAndTime of all zeroes (8 octets).
comes up again in the ROHC MIB draft-ietf-rohc-mib-rtp-08.txt
which just finished IETF Last Call. I am just going to let it 
pass.

But...

If we think that that DEFVAL is valid (and we behave that way by passing
documents that use it), then I think we should propose some text for an
ERRATA statement for RFC-Editor.

It could be as simple as something aka:

   The DESCRIPTION clause of the DateAndTime TC needs an 
   additional paragraph:

      The special 8-octet value of '0000000000000000'H can be used
      to represent a NULL value.

If the SMIv2 authors/editors and the MIB Doctors agree with this,
then I am willing to move ahead. If people believe that text should
be modified, pls let me know.

Not sure if it would need an IETF Last Call, cause although we may 
agree that it is an "oversight", it is not clearly just a typo.
I kind of would say it does NOT need an IETF Last Call.
The following RFCs already use the '0000000000000000'H value
for the DateAndTimeTC
  RFC 2561  - TN3270E-MIB
  RFC 2562  - TN3270E-RT-MIB
  RFC 2564  - APPLICATION-MIB
  RFC 2591  - DISMAN-SCHEDULE-MIB
  RFC 2594  - WWW-MIB
  RFC 2758  - SLAPM-MIB
  RFC 2925  - DISMAN-PING-MIB
  RFC 3165  - DISMAN-SCRIPT-MIB
  possibly in some newer RFCs too.

Pls send in your comments:

- I think this emendment is GOOD/BAD (pls choose GOOD or BAD)
- I think it does/does-not require an IETF Last Call 
  (pls choose does or does-not) 

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: maandag 8 september 2003 22:23
> To: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Is this an oversight in RFC 2579?
> 
> 
> [ The attached message has been forwarded from the entity   ]
> [ MIB list, as it is a question of general interest.  --cmh ]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de]
> Sent: maandag 8 september 2003 17:10
> To: C. M. Heard
> Cc: entmib@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] entity mib support for tcif
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 01:24:57PM -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > 
> > >>>>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) replied:
> > Bert> Or..., the DESCRIPTION clause could say that all zeroes for
> > Bert> the DateAndTime would mean 
> > Bert> "manufacture date unknown or nor supported"
> > Bert> 
> > Bert> Just thinking aloud here.
> > 
> > It seems to me that this would conflict with the DateAndTime
> > DESCRIPTION clause in RFC 2579.
> 
> While true, it is existing practice in other MIB modules to use
> '0000000000000000'H as a NULL value and I personally consider not
> allowing this special value an oversight in the SMIv2 revision.
> 
> /js
>