> > The range was added based on a comment from Bert.  I similar change
> > was made in the IP MIB update (2011bis).  
> 
> I believe there is no problem with not having a range restriction 
> since the type is an Unsigned32 which should nicely fit into an OID
> subidentifier.
> 
I think (but I hope David Perkins can give definite answer) that the 
warning is given because it is used as an index object.
An unsigned32 includes value zero, which we prefer not to be valid
value for an index. If people do want to allow for zero, then they
better be explicit about that.

Dave?

Bert
> /js

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to