Re: Issue with HCTC Perf Interval MIB (and thereforewith the VDSL MIB)

Hi -

> From: "Bob Ray" <[email protected]>
> To: "Mike Sneed" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "adslmib mail list" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Issue with HCTC Perf Interval MIB (and thereforewith the VDSL MIB)
>

> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 11:06, Michael Sneed wrote:
> > During the IETF Last Call process there were some concerns expressed in the
> > IESG about the HCTC Performance Interval MIB
> > (draft-ietf-adslmib-hc-tc-06.txt) that we have recommended to go to Proposed
> > Standard.  In a nutshell, the problem is one of alignment of the various
> > MIBs that deal with this topic (namely RFC3593 and 2856).
> >
> > As a result of this discussion, it has been recommended that we change
> >
> >     - HCPerfTimeElapsed, Gauge32 (0...86399)
> >     - HCPerfValidIntervals, Gauge32 (0...96)
> >     - HCPerfInvalidIntervals, Gauge32 (0...96)
> >
> > to type Integer32.
> >
> >
> > Does anyone wish to comment on this change before the editors put in in a
> > new draft?
>
> Anyone have an objection?  A chorus of 'No's would be appreciated.  Or at
> least one. :)
...

In the spirit of collaboration, I'll say that I dislike like the proposed change, and
support it *solely* for reasons of compatibility.  The MIB review guidelines make
it pretty clear that Gauge32 would be the preferred data type, given the
semantics.

Randy