>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:58:25 +0000, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> The only issue would then be a manager that expects a certain >> behavior of the TC (which is what it has to go on). Dave> Including parsing the free text of the MIB description, I trust. No. Dave> I would hope that such managers wouldn't misinterpret this Dave> definition as saying that this *must* be 5 minutes. Well, the problem with this TC in particular is that managers do treat it specially and generically. It's one of the reasons the IETF doesn't let you play around with it much. If you want something different, use your own TC or enum list (which also wouldn't fly in an IETF standard document, actually). The issue is: with the number of MIBs out there that use it if they all used it in different ways the meaning of the original design would be useless. You can either write objects such that they can be managed generically, or you can write objects where you would have to write specialized code for every call of it. In which case, what's the purpose of a TC in the first place? By your definition, you should have no issues if I used the TruthValue TC and in the text clause reversed the meaning of the true/false values (extreme example, of course) and thus managers should never assume that the TruthValue clause should be treated generically. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
