Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Randy I would suggest some wording if I knew what was intended but as yet, I don't:-(. I suspect that Bill's description - use the next available integer in sequence - may be what is intended but, for me, that is not the sense of the words. Off list:-(, I did get a different interpretation -

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Hi - If the document gives a false impression that the values of traceRouteHopsHopIndex could be interpreted as hop numbers, an editorial change to dispel that notion would make sense. (Likewise, if consecutive integers starting at one was the intent, and is what current implementations actually

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Strahm wrote: Robert Elz wrote: I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone, can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the problem

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

- Original Message - From: Bill Strahm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: iesg iesg@ietf.org; ietf ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:48 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:41:37PM +0100, Tom.Petch wrote: Alternatively, if a hop, eg 3, does not respond, then is the intention that that the entries go 1,2,4,5,6? traceRouteHopsMinRtt: The minimum traceroute round-trip-time (RTT) received for this hop. A value of 0 for

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

At 13:12 27/02/2006, John Leslie wrote: This _often_ leads to seemingly irrational defense of the exact words which have been agreed upon. :^( Please remember that words may become the name of a doctrine having influence on many other things. Also, it is precisely because the meaning of the

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Juergen, I assumed, from reading in traceRouteHopsHopIndex about the behavior when a path changes, that the only safe thing for a manager to do is to read the hops from the table and render them to the user in order of increasing traceRouteHopsHopIndex but without necessarily showing the

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone, can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the problem is easy, what possible justification can there be for not adding a few words

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Robert Elz wrote: I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone, can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the problem is easy, what possible justification can there be for not

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Bill Strahm wrote: Robert Elz wrote: I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone, can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the problem is easy, what possible justification

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

I find the following unclear and would like to see it spelt out in detail traceRouteHopsHopIndex snip MUST start at 1 and increase monotonically. Recent discussions on the ietf main list identified two meanings for 'monotonically' - a sequence where each value is greater than or equal

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:18:26PM +0100, Tom.Petch wrote: I find the following unclear and would like to see it spelt out in detail traceRouteHopsHopIndex snip MUST start at 1 and increase monotonically. Recent discussions on the ietf main list identified two meanings for

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Hi - From: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Feb 25, 2006 3:18 AM To: iesg iesg@ietf.org, ietf ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard I find the following unclear and would like to see

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Hi - From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Feb 25, 2006 10:29 AM To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: iesg iesg@ietf.org, ietf ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard When you combine

Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard

Sam Hartman wrote: When you combine increase with monotonically you rule out the possibility that it is equal. Depending on the definition as discussed here. I'd have no problem if somebody claims that trunc(x) or timestamp2date(t) are monotically increasing. I'd expect for an index you