[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pseudo WG Last Call for: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-taddress-mib-02.txt
[ ... a response to an almost forgotten thread... ]
>>>>> C M Heard writes:
Mike> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: For that
Mike> reason, I suggest that it be pointed out both in the "Overview"
Mike> section and in the DESCRIPTION clause of the TransportAddress TC
Mike> that any transport domain registered in a separate MIB module
Mike> CANNOT be one that is identified by a TransportAddressType
Mike> value. The purpose of putting it in both places is to make sure
Mike> that MIB designers using the TCs are aware of the limitations
Mike> that come with specifying a TransportAddressType object instead
Mike> of a TransportDomain object as the context for interpreting a
Mike> TransportAddress value.
I have added text to section 3 which explains the differences and I
have added text to the TransportAddressType definition which kind of
warns people about the limited extensibility. I hope this addresses
The new text in section 3:
There are two different ways how new transport domains and textual
conventions for the address formats used by those new transport
domains can be defined.
1. The MIB module contained in this memo can be updated and new
constants for the TransportDomain and the TransportAddressType
enumeration can be assigned.
2. Other MIB modules may define additional transport domains and
associated textual conventions. Such an extension can not update
the TransportAddressType enumeration.
It is therefore a MIB designers choice whether he uses (a) a more
compact TransportAddressType object with limited extensibility or (b)
a more verbose TransportDomain object which allows arbitrary
extensions in other MIB modules.
The new text in the TransportAddressType definition:
The usage of this textual convention implies that additional
transport domains can only be supported by updating this MIB
module. This extensibility restriction does not apply for the
TransportDomain textual convention which allows MIB authors
to define additional transport domains independently in
other MIB modules.
Juergen Schoenwaelder <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>