RE: Use of BITS construct in table indices

I think you meant to point out that bits are numbered from 0, but what I
stated was as if they started at 1, but that doesn't work either (not an
integer except for certain values of M, for one thing).  Neither's right.
(Remind me to proofread when sleep deprived. :)

N = (M + 8 - (M % 8))/8

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:28:17 +0100
> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
> To: "Knotts, Jay B (Jay)" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Use of BITS construct in table indices
>
> Actaully I think it is:
>
>    N = (7 + M)/8  where M is highest bit value
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Knotts, Jay B (Jay) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 15:45
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Use of BITS construct in table indices
> >
> >
> >
> > This is the correct formula for calculating string length of
> > BITS? Just wanted to make sure.
> >
> >
> > >> I am inclined to believe that it is considered a
> > variable-length string,
> > >> and subject to being encoded with (N+1) subidentifiers where
> > >> N = (M + (M % 8))/8, M = highest bit value supported by an
> > implementation,
> > >> unless it is an IMPLIED index.
> >
> > Jay Knotts
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:06 AM
> > 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