Re: contiguous BITS question

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:47:22PM -0400, jcucchiara@mindspring.com wrote:

> One of the MIB modules that is being reviewed for GMPLS
> gives the following error because the BITS are not contiguous.
> I have requested that the authors change this, but they are
> hesitant because the enum reflects the actual TLV object 
> that this managed object represents:
> 
> >
> > E: f(IANA-GMPLS-MIB.my), (252,22) Named bits for BITS
> > must be in contiguous positions
> >
> >       SYNTAX  BITS {
> >                      delInProgress (0),
> >                      adminDown (1),
> >                      testing (2),
> >                      reflect (31)
> >                    }
> >
> >
> > RFC2578 specifies that BITS should be contiguous
> > (although there are exceptions to this, but this
> > object does not seem to be an exception).
> 
> 
> Here is the TLV that the object represents:
> 
> 0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |R|                        Reserved                       |T|A|D|
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>       Reflect (R): 1 bit
>       Reserved: 28 bits
>       Testing (T): 1 bit
>       Administratively down (A): 1 bit
>       Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit

It looks like the bit positions are actually reversed in the BITS
definition, or is it just too early in the morning for me?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany