Re: Entity State MIB Status

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Status
...
> > 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.
...

It might be worthwhile to also add some text that explains that 0 is used
in the month and day fields in conjunction with sentinel values, whose
exact semantics are specific to usages of the TC.

Randy