RE: dumb questions/comments regarding smi-ng

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

At 12:34 PM 8/31/2001, Jason, Jamie wrote:
>You say it is not a future requirement.  I can interpret this two ways - (1)
>it is needed now and therefore shouldn't be put off, or (2) it is not a
>requirement moving forward.  From the context of the previous paragraph, I
>am inclined to think you mean (1).

If Real Numbers had existed in SMIv2, I would have used it in RFCs 2213 and 
2214. My reason would have been that it accurately depicted the underlying 
data type, from the other RFCs I listed, which is itself floating point.

I'll say it is a current requirement (eg, (1)), that I can be pushed on. 
Internally, I represent the same data as "unsigned long long", and so could 
be argued into using Unsigned64 in the MIB. However, since the underlying 
data is IEEE Floating Point, I would strongly prefer to see a Real Number 
type - and would have done so in my implementation if Cisco hardware 
universally implemented floating point arithmetic.