Subject: Re: UTF8 DisplayString

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 14:10:52 -0800 (PST)

Hi - 

(as technical contributor, not disman chair)

> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 11:56:48 -0500
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
> From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: UTF8 DisplayString
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> References: <[email-masked]>
>  <[email-masked]>
>  <[email-masked]>
> 
> At 11:15 AM 11/14/98 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >We discussed the need for several commonly used new TCs in Los Angeles
> >and I think there was agreement to put together such an addendum.  The
> >SNMPv3 chair did not get someone to work on this. Therefore, you have
> >3 options:
> 
> That implies to me that the working group doesn't believe the problem is
> worth solving now.
> 
> >b) Use SnmpAdminString because it is pretty close to what you want
> >   and it is available now and has a chance of wide spread support.
>  ...
> >Given the constraints we are working in, I would say b) is a
> >reasonable option. (Sure, this solution is not really satisfying, 
> >but what can we little document editors do? Even writing concrete
> >proposals (draft-daniele-iana-addr-mib-00.txt.gz) does not seem to 
> >make things moving faster.)
> 
> The working group explicitly decided that SnmpAdminString was not
> appropriate for general use 

I think this wording leads to mis-interpretation.

SnmpAdminString is not the most general string representation possible.
SnmpAdminString IS perfectly usable in contexts beyond the SNMPv3
documents.  The DESCRIPTION text in RFC 2271 makes this pretty clear.

>                             and explicitly decided not to work on such a
> textual convention at that time.  

The agreement (Russ, please correct me if I'm mistating things) was
to not spend time developing the general-purpose replacement for
DisplayString.  There were members of the group who wanted constraints
on the string payload.  This led to the language regarding leading/
trailing white space and line separators.  The group did NOT decide 
to impose limitations on the use of the TC that we ended up defining.

>                                   I thought we should but was consensused
> down.  I'm not willing to subvert that as I don't know enough about the
> problems to know why we didn't just do it then.

I would have prefered to jsut solve it then, but there were strongly
held views regarding the white space and line separator issues.  The
text we have represents the compromise on these points.  As long as
your requirements can be satistfied within the constraints of the
SnmpAdminString TC, its appropriate to use it.

> If we need a commmon, international DisplayString, it should be a product
> of the SNMPv3 working group.  

Yes.  For the purposes of these disman MIBs, I believe that the
SnmpAdminString TC is adequate, and do not think we should delay
work waiting for a new TC to be defined, nor do I think we have
any motivation to define something of our own.

>                               It's up to the interested parties,
> international members and our international Area Directors to whip the
> working group into shape and I'm already interested in more than I can handle.
> 
> 	Bob
...

The disman chair says:

    Unless the ADs or SNMPv3 chair say that SnmpAdminString is
    off-limits, or we find a substantive technical reason for not
    using this TC, we'll use this TC in our work where human-readable
    information needs to be represented.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           Email: [email-masked] http://www.bmc.com     
 Voice: +1 408 616-3100  BMC Software, Inc.           965 Stewart Drive
 Fax:   +1 408 616-3101  Sunnyvale, California 94086  USA
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 In accordance with the BMC Communications Systems Use and Security
 Policy, I explicitly state that although my affiliation with BMC may be
 apparent, implied, or provided, my opinions are not necessarily those
 of BMC Software and that all external representations on behalf of
 BMC must first be cleared with a member of "the top management team."
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:21:38 -0500

>I think this wording leads to mis-interpretation.

I was going partly by the wording and mostly by my recollection of the
meeting where we decided not to do a general purpose textual convention.

>to impose limitations on the use of the TC that we ended up defining.

That fits my recollection.

>SnmpAdminString TC, its appropriate to use it.

I also would have preferred to solve the problem then.  It bothers me to go
beyond that and use what was agreed upon for limited use in the more
general context, exactly like DisplayString.  It strikes me as rather too
much like Congress passing laws that are sufficiently vague that
conflicting points of view can each pretend they won, then letting chaos
ensue to be sorted out in the courts.

At 11:36 PM 11/18/98 +0100, Bert Wijnen wrote:
>We have already been pushing (gently) the use of SnmpAdminString in
>many places where it makes sense. So the use in DISMAN is perfectly
>fine.

I'm unhappy with such a sidestep on the issue, but since the A-D and the
chair have spoken and the original authors and the community are silent I
can hardly refuse to comply, so against my better judgement from now on
I'll use SnmpAdminString instead of DisplayString.

	Bob