RE: [OPSAWG] [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-04.txt oid xmlpattern 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: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Natale, Bob
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de; Bert Wijnen
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
> 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: nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
> [mailto:nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:27 AM
> To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; 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: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <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 
> <nmrg-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> !! or look at https://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 