RE: SIZE constraint language for InetAddress index objects in draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt

["Eduardo Cardona" <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>]

Hi all, 

I remember comments about the extended discussion  in a previous
discussion

One more question what is the straight methodology when assigning the
SIZE constrains for drafts where no IANA number is being assigned to the
mib module? 
Will that be a note to the RFC editor to change the value when assigning
the module root ID ? 

One clarification. 
Are the sub-identifiers counted as the mib definition or as ASN.1
encoded ? I think (may be I am wrong) is as ASN.1 encoded) for example
.1.3.6.1.4.1.230.2.4; 230 (> 127) is encoded by two sub-identifiers 
 
To provide a clear method for determine the SIZE length, what about :
(still language is rough)

            When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
            index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
            sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58.  In this case,
            the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to
            limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers
            or else the applicable constraints MUST be stated in the
            appropriate conceptual row DESCRIPTION clause or in the
            surrounding documentation if there is no single DESCRIPTION
            clause that is appropriate.

            Moreover, Implementors that defines an object X as index of
one 
            or more tables must convey to the 128 by the below rules:
            Object X (SIZE) =  128 - (Longest oid of list of table
Structures
            Entry ) - 1 (OID Object in table entry) - (Oid lengths for
other 
            index parts* ) 

            * consider ASN.1 BER encodings for numeric values greather
than 127
            and non IMPLIED OCTET string values." 
 
 Also would be usefull some examples....

Thoughs?


Thanks

Eduardo

-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Mibs Mailing List
Subject: SIZE constraint language for InetAddress index objects in
draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt


Howdy,

I notice that draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt now includes the
following language in the InetAddress DESCRIPTION clause:

            When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
            index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
            sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58. In this case,
            the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to
            limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers
            or else the applicable constraints MUST be stated in
            the appropriate row DESCRIPTION clauses."

This does not quite agree with Section 4.6.5 of
<draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt>. I thought we had agreed
on something along the following lines, which does agree with the
guidelines document:

            When this textual convention is used as the syntax of an
            index object, there may be issues with the limit of 128
            sub-identifiers specified in SMIv2, STD 58.  In this case,
            the object definition MUST include a 'SIZE' clause to
            limit the number of potential instance sub-identifiers
            or else the applicable constraints MUST be stated in the
            appropriate conceptual row DESCRIPTION clause or in the
            surrounding documentation if there is no single DESCRIPTION
            clause that is appropriate."

The attached message explains the rationale.

Mike