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

Re: WG: TEXTUAL-CONVENTION and UNITS question

To: j.epping@benning.de
Subject: Re: WG: TEXTUAL-CONVENTION and UNITS question
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:22:16 +0100
Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <B7A6422E7A5EFB419420B9C9BDCF9938099499@TBBSRV20> (message from"Epping, Jörg" on Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:38:43+0100)
References: <B7A6422E7A5EFB419420B9C9BDCF9938099499@TBBSRV20>


>>>>> =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Epping=2C J=F6rg=22?= writes:

Epping> Is it possible (or correct) to keep the TC and change the UNIT
Epping> clause in the OT to "0.01 Volt DC" then? Or is the best way to
Epping> remove the DISPLAY-HINT and only use the "0.0x"-syntax in the
Epping> UNIT clause?  I took the "0.0x"-syntax from the UPS-MIB, but
Epping> the combination with TC and UNIT looked nicer to me.

Removing the DISPLAY-HINT clause avoids ambiguities, which is good.

You probably also want to change the TC name - perhaps even switching
to MilliVolts rather then hundreds of volts as this might be more
natural and reusable (assuming you do not have to deal with voltages
above 2147483.648 or below -2147483.647 volts).

/js

References:
- WG: TEXTUAL-CONVENTION and UNITS question
  - From: "Epping, Jörg" <j.epping@benning.de>

Prev by Date: WG: TEXTUAL-CONVENTION and UNITS question
Next by Date: RE: usage of mibs@ops.ietf.org
Previous by thread: WG: TEXTUAL-CONVENTION and UNITS question
Next by thread: RE: usage of mibs@ops.ietf.org
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread