Re: WG last call: Coex draft

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Michael Kirkham wrote:
> I would suggest that snmpCommunityName and snmpTrapCommunity should have
> size restrictions.  While SMIv2 has an implied limit of 64k for OCTET
> STRING, it's not particularly realistic to have 64k community strings, let
> alone in the table.  Unfortunately SNMPv1 and v2c don't specify a
> community string size limit, so choosing one that's appropriate and agreed
> upon may be difficult.

I think these object definitions should be left unchanged.  Changing
(or adding) a SIZE restriction is not one of the modifications that is
permitted by RFC 2578 Section 10.2.  Since neither of these objects
appears in an INDEX clause, there is nothing illegal about the
definitions as they stand and so no error to fix;  and as noted above,
it's not obvious what the limit should be anyway. 

//cmh