Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS restrictions of its base type?

[Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>]

Hi -

> Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20020903162413.03c03c50@127.0.0.1>
> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:39:12 -0700
> To: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
> Subject: Re: Should a TC be allowed to remove the MAX-ACCESS
>   restrictions of its base type?
> In-Reply-To: <200209032257.PAA12286@dorothy.bmc.com>
...
> >Agreed, and more: The SMI shouldn't have tagged all these
> >things that are simply INTEGERs.
> 
> And maybe I'm reading more into this than he means. But if the
> goal is to have just "INTEGER" with no ranges, then I don't want
> to be a part of that world.

Subtyping is good and useful.  The tagging of INTEGER types
in the SMI has increased complexity and provided only marginal
value to MIB browsers that have no MIB knowledge.  Supporting
unconstrained INTEGER types is not the question at hand.

(But it's not as hard to do efficiently as the bad
implementations out there might lead one to believe.)

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San Jose, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------