Re: Comments on draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-12.txt

Gary Hanson <gary@kentrox.com> Fri, 20 March 1998 18:15 UTC

Delivery-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:15:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:54:58 -0800
From: Gary Hanson <gary@kentrox.com>
To: Peter Jones <peter@atmospherenet.com>
Cc: atommib@thumper.bellcore.com, Kaj Tesink <kaj@cc.bellcore.com>, John Neil <jn@aus.atmospherenet.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-12.txt
In-Reply-To: <351215F4.F5A35497@atmospherenet.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.980320070026.18024A-100000@skeeter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"

Peter,

Thanks for noticing these.  My old SMIv2 compiler tends to log so many
warnings and false errors that I had not noticed these yet.  :-(

Now that you mention it, however, I must admit that I am more confused
about the DisplayString TEXTUAL-CONVENTION than I was before.  In RFC
1903, the SYNTAX of DisplayString is OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)).  If
an object is defined as a DisplayString, I would assume that the SMIv2
MIB compiler would convert the SYNTAX of DisplayString to that defined
in the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, namely OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)).

I am not sure I fully understand how an SMIv2 compiler should treat an
object SYNTAX that is then specified either as DisplayString (0..255)
or as DisplayString (SIZE(0..255)).  I would think that these macro
conversions would have to result in the following weird results.

In source SMIv2:
  SYNTAX  DisplayString (0..255)
After macro conversion:
  SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)) (0..255)

In source SMIv2:
  SYNTAX  DisplayString (SIZE(0..255))
After macro conversion:
  SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)) (SIZE(0..255))

Do EITHER of these usages of DisplayString and their macro conversions
make sense?  Or am I mistakenly trying to apply my understanding of C
preprocessor rules in the context of SMIv2 macro conversion, where it
may not be appropriate?  (Maybe we aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto....)
Can someone explain how an SMIv2 compiler is expected to treat either
of the above cases?

Thanks for any explanations offered.

Gary

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Peter Jones wrote:

> Hi There,
> 
> In compiling this version of the MIB, I found a couple of problems:
> 
> 1)      atm2MIBConformance needs to change from {atm2MIB 2} to 
>         {atm2MIB 3} to avoid clashing with atm2MIBTraps.
> 
> 2)      The sytax used to restrict the Display String size 
>         seesm to be incorrect, e.g. 
>                 atmVpCrossConnectUserName OBJECT-TYPE
>                         SYNTAX       DisplayString (0..255)
> 
>         An example from RFC2233: IF-MIB follows
> 
>                 ifAlias   OBJECT-TYPE
>                         SYNTAX      DisplayString (SIZE(0..64))

> regards
> Peter Jones
> 
> 
> -- 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Peter Jones                           Atmosphere Networks
> Manager of Software Development       4th Floor, Balcroft Building
>                                       Garden Office Park
>                                       345 Harborne Street
>                                       Osborne Park WA 6017, Australia
> Direct: +61 (8) 9443 0105             Main: +61 (8) 9443 0100
>                                       Fax:  +61 (8) 9443 6610
> mailto:peter@atmospherenet.com        http://www.atmospherenet.com
> _______________________________________________________________________
>

Comments on draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-12.txt Peter Jones
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-12.txt Gary Hanson