Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t

Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Mon, 05 January 2004 10:32 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12550 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:32:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AdS1j-0005YG-VK for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:32:04 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i05AW3QR021341 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:32:03 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AdS1g-0005Xy-Ua; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:32:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AdS0q-0005XP-K7 for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:31:08 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12496 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:31:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AdS0n-0002Pb-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:31:05 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AdRyt-0002KE-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:29:07 -0500
Received: from agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de ([134.169.34.18]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AdRx5-0002DS-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:27:16 -0500
Received: from hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.81]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i05ARCmQ001128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:27:12 +0100
Received: from hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id i05ARBCw030159; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:27:11 +0100
Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id i05ARBKs030156; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:27:11 +0100
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:27:11 +0100
Message-Id: <200401051027.i05ARBKs030156@hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
To: bwijnen@lucent.com
CC: bridge-mib@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155033D2FD6@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> (bwijnen@lucent.com)
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] FW: Please review and comment: draft-ietf-ops-vl anid-tc-mib-00.tx t
References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155033D2FD6@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0 ()
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.24 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge-mib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

>> -----Original Message----- From: Tom Petch
>> 
>> But if it does, then keep the name simple, don't overload the name,
>> the identifier, with a description of the semantics
>> 

Bert> MMm... if we look at for example DateAndTime TC, does that not
Bert> give similar semantics in the name? I am sure there are many
Bert> others that do so too.

I do not think this is a good comparison, especially since the
DateAndTime definition does not speel out a NULL value and people
frequently use a string will all 0s which is not really consistent
with the TC definition which requires a value unequal to 0 for the
month and day fields.

I think Tom was more pointing into the direction of
InterfaceIndexOrZero where Zero basically indicates that there is a
special value but its semantics must be specified in the description
of the object using that TC. If you are very precise how the special
value (or values) are going to be used, then you will end up with
many TCs.

So, let me play devils advocate: Can someone summarize why we already
have VlanIdOrAny plus VlanIdOrNone and why VlanIdOrZero is not good
enough?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib