RE: entstate-648 Wordsmith - various (I, J, K, L, M, N )
"Sharon Chisholm" <[email protected]> Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:44:47 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.entmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4022400CC@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> |
hi I had a typo. I meant this: > When the 'value of underRepair' is set, the resource is currently > being repaired, which depending on the implementation, may make the > other values in this bit string not meaningful." Sharon -----Original Message----- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:22 AM To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Entmib] entstate-648 Wordsmith - various (I, J, K, L, M, N ) On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:50:24PM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote: > When the 'value of underRepair' is set, the resource is currently > being repaired, which depending on the implementation, may make the > other values in this bit string meaningful." Something like "may make the other values in this bit string meaningful" scares me a bit. Is there any way to find out whether the bits are meaningful, other than knowing the object implementor and having a beer with her? What about this (although it does not change the general situation): When the 'value of underRepair' is set, the resource is currently being repaired. In this situation, it is implementation specific whether the other values in this bit string are meaningful. (This just avoids the "make meaningful" phrase, which kind of implies that before the transition into underRepair the bits were not meaningful, which I think is not necessarily true.) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany