On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Keeping the amount of paperwork to a minimum, how about doing
> something that, while perfectly legal as far as I can tell,
> might *really* irk badly written code:
>
> hrExtStorageEntry OBJECT-TYPE
> SYNTAX HrExtStorageEntry
> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible
> STATUS current
> DESCRIPTION
> "A (conceptual) entry for one logical storage area on
> the host, containing extensions to the information
> contained in the corresponding hrStorageEntry."
> AUGMENTS { hrStorageEntry }
> ::= { hrStorageTable 2 }
>
> -- yes, that's a TWO!
I wouldn't do that. It that violates RFC 2578 7.10 (1):
(1) If the object corresponds to a conceptual table, then only a single
assignment, that for a conceptual row, is present immediately
beneath that object. The administratively assigned name for the
conceptual row object is derived by appending a sub-identifier of
"1" to the administratively assigned name for the conceptual table.
and it's not unlikely that some implementations exploit this
restriction in some way.
//cmh
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
