I have no problems with Rajiv's proposed changes. I think that is better than revving 3291bis and affecting other mibs.
Brian
Dave Thaler wrote:
I also prefer it the way it is now, and Rajiv's proposed mods look fine to me.
-Dave
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bs.de] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 6:37 AM To: Kristine Adamson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ipv6mib] Re: Auth48 update to TCP-MIB(draft-ietf-ipv6- rfc2012-update-06.txt)
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:04:57AM -0600, Kristine Adamson wrote:
In this case, would it be better to update draft-3291bis to permit zero-length octet-strings for InetAddress objects whose
InetAddressType
is
IPv4 or IPv6? We have already encountered problems with network management applications not being able to get as much SNMP data back
in
an
SNMP response as they would like to be able to. With an IPv6
address in
an instance already taking up a lot of space in the SNMP response
packet,
it doesn't seem like a good use of response packet space to return
16
bytes of zeros for the address.
While I do not really buy into the bandwidth argument, I am indeed wondering whether the current rule is perhaps overly restrictive. At the moment (and that is unchanged from RFC 3291 and even from RFC
2851),
we have the following implication:
InetAddress zero-length => InetAddressType == unknown
To change this (basically removing this rule), we would have to remove text from the 'unknown' definition and we would have to add text to
the
InetAddress TC that zero-length values can be legal subject to the semantics spelled out in the definition where the TC is being used (with a statement that per default they are not legal if nothing is spelled out in the description clause (backwards compatibility)).
I am not sure which impact such a change will have. These TCs have seen quite some usage - not only in the IETF, but also in vendor specific MIB modules. And this is the first time I can remember (and that I could find in my mailing list archive) that a change to generally allow zero-length InetAddress values has been proposed.
Unless I hear a strong move to change the rule above, I actually
prefer
to stay with what we have.
/js
-- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725
Bremen,
Germany -- !! This message is brought to you via the `ipv6mib' mailing list. !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe
or
adjust !! your settings, send a mail message to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
!! or look at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6mib.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
