Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-12.txt

From: Peter Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:08:36 +0800

Hi There,

In compiling this version of the MIB, I found a couple of problems:

1)      atm2MIBConformance needs to change from {atm2MIB 2} to 
        {atm2MIB 3} to avoid clashing with atm2MIBTraps.

2)      The sytax used to restrict the Display String size 
        seesm to be incorrect, e.g. 
                atmVpCrossConnectUserName OBJECT-TYPE
                        SYNTAX       DisplayString (0..255)

        An example from RFC2233: IF-MIB follows

                ifAlias   OBJECT-TYPE
                        SYNTAX      DisplayString (SIZE(0..64))

regards
Peter Jones

-- 
______________________________________________________________________
Peter Jones                           Atmosphere Networks
Manager of Software Development       4th Floor, Balcroft Building
                                      Garden Office Park
                                      345 Harborne Street
                                      Osborne Park WA 6017, Australia
Direct: +61 (8) 9443 0105             Main: +61 (8) 9443 0100
                                      Fax:  +61 (8) 9443 6610
mailto:[email-masked]        http://www.atmospherenet.com
_______________________________________________________________________

---

From: Gary Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:54:58 -0800 (PST)

Peter,

Thanks for noticing these.  My old SMIv2 compiler tends to log so many
warnings and false errors that I had not noticed these yet.  :-(

Now that you mention it, however, I must admit that I am more confused
about the DisplayString TEXTUAL-CONVENTION than I was before.  In RFC
1903, the SYNTAX of DisplayString is OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)).  If
an object is defined as a DisplayString, I would assume that the SMIv2
MIB compiler would convert the SYNTAX of DisplayString to that defined
in the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, namely OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)).

I am not sure I fully understand how an SMIv2 compiler should treat an
object SYNTAX that is then specified either as DisplayString (0..255)
or as DisplayString (SIZE(0..255)).  I would think that these macro
conversions would have to result in the following weird results.

In source SMIv2:
  SYNTAX  DisplayString (0..255)
After macro conversion:
  SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)) (0..255)

In source SMIv2:
  SYNTAX  DisplayString (SIZE(0..255))
After macro conversion:
  SYNTAX  OCTET STRING (SIZE(0..255)) (SIZE(0..255))

Do EITHER of these usages of DisplayString and their macro conversions
make sense?  Or am I mistakenly trying to apply my understanding of C
preprocessor rules in the context of SMIv2 macro conversion, where it
may not be appropriate?  (Maybe we aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto....)
Can someone explain how an SMIv2 compiler is expected to treat either
of the above cases?

Thanks for any explanations offered.

Gary

---

From: Gary Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:54:58 -0800 (PST)

Peter,

In source SMIv2:

In source SMIv2:

Gary