Re: clarifications of SNMPv2 related RFCs.

[Quality Quorum <[e-mail]>]

> 
> I figured that maybe we should have some discussion on an issue I
> recently reported to Dave Perkins (who is working with some others
> on a clarifications document).
> 
> Mayeb other people have comments and suggestions on this.
> 
> Dave Perkins reacted to a discussion on OwnerString in the if-mib and
> disman WG mailing lists about issues w.r.t. it being allowed to do
> new TC as a efinement of an existing TC .
> 
> I then thought abot the following strange thing that I do not yet
> grasp.
> 
> In RFC1903 I see the TCs for TDomain and TAddress
> 
> In RFC1906 I see snmpUDPDomain and snmpUDPAddress and others.
> 
> So if I have a MIB I would like to be able to define 2 columns
> in a table, one of type TDomain and one of TAddress, like:
> 
>    myTdomain  OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX   TDomain
>        ..etc..
> 
>    myTaddress OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX   TAddress
>        ..etc..
> 
> If an instance of myTdomain takes for instance the value of
> snmpUDPDomain, then the same instance of myTaddress takes the
> value of an octet string formatted according to the snmpUDPAddress.
> Sofar So good. But the question then is.... what is the use of
> snmpUDPAddress TC?? Should it not be based on TAddress with a
> refinement? And even then.... how do you handle that programmatic?

The reason is mostly historical - by the time big guy realized that
there is a better way it was to late to change anything.

> 
> Bert
> 


Aleksey