Re: Entity State MIB Status

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
 
> Part of the difficulty in naming this one is that it seems to be doing
> triple-duty for notApplicable as well as notSupported and notAvailable.
> It's unclear whether the distinction would actually be useful, so as long
> as everyone agrees that "unavailable" includes these cases, I'd be happy.

So "unknown" would IMHO be the better choice as it is clearly vague.
 
> >  311 DateAndTimeOrZero
> > - Didn't really have proposed resolution or rather we had a couple
> > comments after
> > the proposed resolution
> ...
> 
> Since DateAndTime is already used this way (and has been for a long time)
> I don't see the value of adding a new TC.  However, it might make sense
> to see if we could agree on an erratum for RFC 2579.

I agree. See my statement to this effect from Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:31:31
+0100. If nobody objects, I will submit an errata with the following 
simple change:

OLD:
              2       3    month                     1..12
              3       4    day                       1..31

NEW:
              2       3    month                     0..12
              3       4    day                       0..31

For those interested: '0000000000000000'H appears 58 times in the set
of published IETF MIB modules. So there is some clear evidence that 
this "zero" value has been used before without introducing a new TC.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany