Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictionsof its base type?

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

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Andy Bierman wrote:
> What if we used a TC that had SYNTAX INTEGER (0..2^^64-1).
> Since ASN.1 allows an integer to be this large, it should
> be okay. (Not withstanding any CLRs in the SMI designed
> to outlaw it.)  Why can't we use INTEGER? Why do we have
> a CLR that makes us use Unsigned32 or nothing?

Do toolsets typically accept SYNTAX INTEGER (0..18446744073709551615)
in a TC or an object definition?  The MIB compilers that I have used
either have rejected it as an error or have handled it incorrectly.

If the objective is to get your MIB deployed without having to
deploy new tools, then it seems to me that you need to avoid
things that the SMI says are illegal, _unless_ you've got good
evidence that the tools don't care about the rules you are
breaking.  That's true even if the rules in question are CLRs.
(Incidentally, I completely agree with you that the SMIv2 rule
restricting INTEGER to the range -2^31..+2^31-1 is a CLR.)

Mike