IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Anyone there?

maria@xedia.com (Maria Greene) Wed, 06 May 1998 19:33 UTC

Delivery-Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 15:33:18 -0400
Return-Path: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns.cnri.reston.va.us [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id PAA20895 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:33:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id PAA14225 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:35:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA10182; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:25:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from relay7.UU.NET (relay7.UU.NET [192.48.96.17]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA10173; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:25:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xedia.com by relay7.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: madway.xedia.com [198.202.232.199]) id QQeoft07157; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:25:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (espanola) by xedia.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17403; Wed, 6 May 98 15:26:21 EDT
Received: by (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA04618; Wed, 6 May 1998 15:25:18 -0400
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 15:25:18 -0400
From: maria@xedia.com
Message-Id: <9805061925.AA04618@>
To: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.peer.com>
Cc: ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Anyone there?
References: <199805061854.LAA13788@dorothy.peer.com>

>>>>> "Randy" == Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.peer.com> writes:
    ...

    Randy> RFC 1628 has lots of DisplayString objects.  Would
    Randy> loosening this constraint to allow UTF-8 for
    Randy> internationalization (SnmpAdminString) cause problems?  The
    Randy> underlying syntax (OCTET STRING) and length constraints
    Randy> would presumably be unchanged.

Hi, Randy. Good question. According to the "letter of the law"
(RFC1902, section 10.2) it can't be. I believe we would need to
deprecate and re-define the objects. However, agents implemented to
the old MIB would still be conformant to the new definition, so this
seems overly restrictive. I believe we would have to get "special
dispensation" to make this change without giving the objects new
OBJECT IDENTIFIERs. How important do you think this is? It effects
many working groups with MIBs that are advancing so maybe it should be
discussed on the v3 list?

Maria

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email