RE: draft-ietf-snmpv3-coex-v2-04.txt

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> DO we worry at all about two SMICng warnings:
> W: f(coex.mi2), (178,24) Item "snmpCommunityName" should have SIZE specified
> W: f(coex.mi2), (396,23) Item "snmpTrapCommunity" should have SIZE specified
> 
> We could add a SIZE of (1..0xffff) I would think

If a SIZE constraint is put in at all it should probably be
(0..65535) (or (0..'ffff'h) if the hexadecimal style is preferred)
since neither RFC 1157 nor RFC 1901 actually specified that the
length of the community name must be non-zero.

That said, I don't care one way or another, and I'm happy to leave
it up to the document authors.  But if a SIZE constraint is added,
then the following text in the DESCRIPTION clauses should be
adjusted to match:

   There is no SIZE constraint specified for this object because
   RFC 1157 does not impose any explicit limitation on the length
   of community strings (their size is constrained indirectly by
   the SNMP message size).

//cmh