RE: [OPSAWG] [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-04.txt oidxmlpattern change

["Natale, Bob" <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

You are right about the fidelity basis for SNMP to ASN.1/BER, but I
don't think the version diffs come into play on this point.  The rule
for BER encoding of the first two sub-ids (X and Y) probably always has
boiled down to "(X*40)+Y" -- which was expressed as far back as
Steedman's book as "40m + n", where (p. 93) he says:

"This saves an octet from every value, exploiting the fact that 0 <= m
<= 2, and that, except possibly for m = 2 (joint-iso-ccitt), n is a
very small number."

Ahhh, the good old days! :)

There is a registered value for 2.41 (ITU-T Rec. X.1083 | ISO/IEC
24708: BioAPI Interworking Protocol (BIP)), approved in Sep-2007, which
requires Juergen's correction...and one could imagine that it could
need to be carried in an SNMP varbind.

Cheers,
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of David Harrington
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:14 AM
To: Natale, Bob; [e-mail]; 'Bert Wijnen'
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-04.txt
oidxmlpattern change

Hi,

SMIv2 is based on ASN.1-1988 not ASN.1-2002.
XSDMI should maintain fidelity to SMIv2.
I would think the snmp-measure document should do so also.

We should be liberal in what we accept, and conservative in what we
send, of course. I think XSDMI should enforce the 1988 syntax, since
one expected use case is validation; it probably will make no
difference to the snmp-research document, whose use case is reporting.


In practice, I have never seen a 2.X in any SMIv2 MIB module.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Natale, Bob
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Bert Wijnen
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [nmrg] 
> draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-04.txt oid xmlpattern change
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Juergen is correct (per Sec. 8.19 of ITU-T Recommendation X.690,
> prepared by ITU-T Study Group 17 and approved on 14 July 2002,
> identical text is also published as ISO/IEC 8825-1).
> 
> draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-02.txt (to be posted any day
> now!) will contain the fix Juergen provides below.
> 
> Cheers,
> BobN
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:27 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Bert Wijnen
> Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-04.txt oid xml pattern
> change
> 
> Hi,
> 
> there was recently a discussion on the XSD pattern for object
> identifier values and it was pointed out that the pattern we picked
up
> from the SMI-XSD document is too restrictive by not allowing OIDs of
> the format 2.X.* where X is larger than 39. I therefore propose that
> we change the pattern used by oid.type from
> 
>       "[0-2](\.[1-3]?[0-9])(\.(0|([1-9]\d*))){0,126}"
> 
> to
> 
>       "([0-1](\.[1-3]?[0-9]))|(2.(0|([1-9]\d*)))" ~
>       "(\.(0|([1-9]\d*))){0,126}"
> 
> Any objections against this change which is really a bugfix? Bert,
do
> we run into procedural trouble if we fix this or an additional N
weeks
> delay? (In that case, I would be tempted to go along with the buggy
> version of the pattern. ;-)
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> -- 
> !! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list.
> !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To
unsubscribe
> or adjust
> !! your settings, send a mail message to 
> <[e-mail]>
> !! or look at https://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg