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

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Michael Kirkham wrote:
> This very question was brought up up back in December in a message to this
> list in the thread "Re: WG last call: Coex draft" and the response at the
> time (though I'm only seeing one in my archive offhand) seemed to be "no":
> 
> | 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

How short my memory is.  Let's leave it alone and not embarrass
me any more :-(

//cmh