Re: MIB Comments 12

["Mark S. Lewis" <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 94 05:03:24 -0600, [e-mail] said:


> At the Houston meeting, it was agreed not to include the signal converter group. 
> I believe that this agreement was reached because, at that time, no objects 
> could be identified that were needed for the first draft. However, I believe 
> that we have objects now in our current draft that belong in the signal 
> converter group and we should therefore include this group in the first draft.

> It was also agreed at the Houston meeting that groupings would follow those of 
> V.58. The objects in question are in the signal converter group in V.58.

> These objects are:

> mdmCCCurrentLineRate
> mdmModulationSchemeUsed

> There are also other misplaced objects that should be in other groups. Although 
> we might end up with only one object in a group for the first draft, this number 
> will expand in future releases, so we should not discard a group simply on the 
> grounds that there is only one object in it.
> According to V.58, 'mdmCCErrorControlUsed' should be the error control group, 
> and 'mdmCCCompressionTypeUsed' should be in the data compression group.

1.  I don't have any objection to using the same grouping as V.58, if
there is at least one object in the group.  However, I would hope we
don't have too much reorganization at this time.  Making the changes
you suggest doesn't seem like a real big deal.  Anybody else?

2.  My preference would be to name active objects with a "Used" suffix
rather than a "Current" in the middle.  So we would have
mdmCCLineRateUsed rather than mdmCCCurrentLineRate.

... Mark

==========--------------       Mark S. Lewis      ----------==========
[e-mail]       Telebit Corp.      Voice [phone]