[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: InetAddressType DEFVAL clause



On Fri, 23 May 2003, Eduardo Cardona wrote:
> I wonder if the DEFVAL clause should or should not be used in a
> InetAddressType  OBJECT-TYPE definition.
> Should be a common practice in a RowStatus type to describe that type
> and Address MUST be set ?

I don't see anything particularly pernicious about a DEFVAL for
an InetAddressType object, provided that a compatible DEFVAL is
given for all InetAddress columns whose type it governs.  Note that
RFC 3291 is quite explicit in requiring that an agent not permit
inconsistent combinations, and that should be sufficient to catch
errors.

> Another point that worries me is the wrong interpretation of InetAddress
> in some RFCs 
> For example in RFC 3176

RFC 3176 is an Informational document describing a proprietary MIB
module.  I'd be more concerned about this appearing in a document
that was produced by an IETF WG or by another SDO.  Can you point
to such a document?

> Some documents are indicating to implementers that an InetAddress size
> is in general from 9 characters (0.0.0.0.0) in other words encoding
> 0x302e302e302e30 to 15 (255.255.255.255) same can happen to Ipv6 

I saw a DEFVAL { "0.0.0.0" } in RFC 3176 but nothing about the
InetAddress size being 9 octets.  That may be just an oversight and
not such a glaring misunderstanding as you suggest.  Of course it's
possible that I missed something.  Again, the real concern would be
if that appeared in a document produced by an IETF WG or by another
SDO.

//cmh