RE: RFC4171 error? [ was MIB Doctor review for:draft-ietf-ips-isns-m ib-09.txt]

Bert,

As a co-author of the iSNS MIB draft, I would prefer you send the
feedback that you have now.  That would allow us to get started on the
response progress.

Regarding RFC 4171, bits 16 to 31 would comprise 16 bits.  Or am I
missing something in the feedback?

1   2         3
6789012345678901

Regards, Kevin

(gate01)



-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:30 AM
To: David Black (E-mail)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [Ips] RFC4171 error? [ was MIB Doctor review
for:draft-ietf-ips-isns-m ib-09.txt]

Dan asked for a volunteer for MIB doctor review, and I offered to do so.
It is a pretty big MIB module, and so I need some mroe time than I had
originally allocated. If the WG wants me to, I can send what I have now,
or I can wait till I have completed my review (not sure I will be able
to finish this week).

In order to do proper review I am also reading RFC4171.
I fin there (in my view) a discrepancy between the figure in sect 5 and
the flag bit positions in sect 5.1.4

>From the figure it seems tto me that the flags field is
only 16 bits. Yet section 5.1.4 talks about bit positions
16-31 ?? Is this on purpose? Am I missing something?

Bert

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

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