RE: questions on smilnt error

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Michael Kirkham wrote:
> The InetAddress TC also has a note about this:
> 
>         "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."
> 
> Whether the MIB Doctors will enforce that or not I don't know.

<draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt> drops the requirement for
index objects of type InetAddress to have a SIZE clause and allows
the constraints to be documented like this in a DESCRIPTION clause.

> Since the
> other indexes appear to be integers, you might consider putting in a size
> limit just to avoid the warning that essentially codifies the already
> imposed limit:
> 
>      vrrpAssoIpAddr OBJECT-TYPE
>          SYNTAX       InetAddress (SIZE(0..112))
> 
> (for example.  may be slightly off but I'm being lazy in my counting.)

Current thinking is that describing the constraint is preferable to
inserting rather arbitrary size limits such as this.

//cmh