Re: Use of BITS construct in table indices
Michael Kirkham <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.snmpv3 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Woops. Overlooked. Thanks. On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:05:56 +0100 > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Use of BITS construct in table indices > > > >>>>> Michael Kirkham writes: > > Michael> RFC 2578 is a bit vague on the legality and implications of > Michael> using objects of type 'BITS' as an INDEX. It's not > Michael> explicitly forbidden, and seems to be legal given that it is > Michael> otherwise indistinguishable from an OCTET STRING. If it's > Michael> legal, then, for purposes of encoding the instance identifier > Michael> for a columnar object, is it considered a fixed-length or a > Michael> variable-length OCTET STRING (since new bits can be added > Michael> over time)? > > RFC 2578 section 7.7 page 28: > > Since a single value of a Counter has (in general) no information > content (see section 7.1.6 and 7.1.10), objects defined using the > syntax, Counter32 or Counter64, must not be specified in an INDEX > clause. If an object defined using the BITS construct is used in an > INDEX clause, it is considered a variable-length string. > > I think the last sentence provides a clear answer to your question. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/> > -- Michael Kirkham www.muonics.com