Re: fddi mib update text

[[e-mail]]

>    All your suggestions look good, and I will update the changes
>    accordingly.  The only question I have is around changing
>    the definition of the textual convention FddiResourceId from
>    INTEGER (0..65535) to (1..65535) -- since this is already defined
>    in the published RFC, I wasn't sure if it's legit to change it.
>    Jeff, are there are any guidelines in this area?

It is legal, but perhaps unwise to redefine the FddiResourceId without renaming
it.  Textual conventions are a little like a static variable within a module,
where there scope is limited to that module, unless they come in from
elsewhere, via the INPORTS clause, in which case both where they come from and
therefore the definition are unambiguous.

In this state, pedestrians always have the right of way.  No matter what, an
operator of a motor vehicle is expected to stop for a pedestrian.  As a
result, it is legal, but perhaps unwise, to step out in front of a rapidly
moving truck.  Down on the farm, we have a saying,

	You'd be right, but then you'd also be dead.

It may be wise for us to remain conservative in what we expect about the
behavior of others.

Consequently, it is my strong recommendation that we rename FddiResourceId
to something else as it is being redefined, so that there is no possible
name conflict.  Perhaps this will follow directly from the other naming
changes we discussed privately yesterday and which you'll be sharing with
the larger group soon.

Of course, I'm not providing legal advice here. :-)  I wouldn't want to be
confused for an attorney.

regards,
jdc