RE: Aggregate Attributes

["Jason, Jamie" <jamie.jason@intel.com>]

I was just giving a simple example of what I meant by naming, not to say
that we are following the C naming scheme.  We have objectives that cover
naming (4.1.8 and 4.1.9).

Jamie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:47 PM
> To: Jason, Jamie
> Cc: 'Frank Strauss'; sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Aggregate Attributes
> 
> 
> HI,
> 
> The following "definition" of naming is really incomplete and 
> demonstrates a limitation found in C. That is, there can not 
> in C be two things called foo in a scope and have them be 
> referenced! In ASN.1 (and in SNMP's SMI) you can.
> 
> Also, when we talk about referencing an instance, we have
> to specify how an instance is referenced. The mechanisms
> are quite different in C compared to SNMP, or in SNMP 
> compared to CMIP.
> 
> Moving on to yet another, but related topic...
> A big issue is once you have defined "foo", can via the
> access protocol (for example SNMP), GET and SET the value
> of a member of foo (such as "x") independently.
> 
> Finally, the term "naming" has a special usage in SNMP.
> A name in SNMP is an OID value.
> 
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Jason, Jamie wrote:
> > To me, named simply means that you have a mechanism for 
> referring to 
> > the attribute group.  Using C as an example:
> > 
> > typedef struct
> > {
> > 	int x;
> > 	int y;
> > } foo;
> > 
> > foo is now a name that you can use later, for example:
> > 
> > typedef struct
> > {
> > 	foo f;
> > } bar;
> > 
> > That was all I had meant by it.
> > 
> > Jamie
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frank Strauss [mailto:strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 1:29 AM
> > > To: Fred Baker
> > > Cc: Jason, Jamie; sming@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: Aggregate Attributes
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > >> 1.  Remove the word non-divisible from the description of
> > > attribute
> > > >> groups and replace the description with something like "named,
> > > >> reusable set of attributes that are meaningful together".
> > > 
> > > Fred> sounds good to me
> > > 
> > > Is this what you mean (I don't understand the word `named' in
> > > your context)?
> > > 
> > >    Description: An attribute group is a reusable set of
> > > attributes that
> > >       are meaningful together. [...]
> > > 
> > > This is from the very latest snapshot (as of Fri Sep 28
> > > 10:29:02 CEST 2001).
> > > 
> > >  -frank
> 
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins
>