RE: NCS Sig MIB draft 5 - PktcRingCadence constraints

 
The "inforcement" of the PktcRingCadence TC is supposed to be provided
by the fact that an EMTA will try to interpret the MIB Object's value in
the SNMP SET in accordance with the rules of the TC. If the value cannot
be interpreted correctly, the SNMP error flag should be raised and
returned in the SNMP SET response message. This is a general SNMP
protocol approach applicable to any MIB Object, and I don't see anything
"special" in PktcRingCadence TC in this respect to be able to agree with
the dedicated "inforcement" statement. 
 
Eugene.

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Beacham Gordon-CGB005
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:46 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: [ipcdn] NCS Sig MIB draft 5 - PktcRingCadence constraints


The following issue has been raised on PktcRingCadence during MIB Dr.
review. Any comments on whether we need to introduce MUST requirements
to enforce the constraints noted below? Thanks.
 
Gordon
 
>From Randy:
 
>12) PktcRingCadence: are implementations required to enforce any
constraints on the values of a) the bit count field, b) >the repeatable
field, c) the 3 on-off transition limit, d) values for bits beyond the
bit count, e) an octet-string length other >than the minimum required to
encode whatever length is specified in the bit count field?

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn