Subject: Re: <draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-04.txt>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 04:41:50 -0400

Hi Frank,

>I've checked the three MIB modules against a MIB compiler that I'm
>working on.  No errors found, just a warning on one descriptor being
>longer than 32 characters. But note that this checker is work in
>progress. ;-)

I did a manual scan and found that traceRouteProbeHistoryLastReplyCode
is longer than 32, so I have changed it to traceRouteProbeHistoryLastRC.
This is the only one that I found. Let me know if there are more.

>The modules contain comments stating the origins of the SMIv2 modules.
>These should be updated from RFC 1902-1904 to RFC 2578-2580.

OK.

>Another note: The module name DISMAN-LOOKUP-MIB seems to be ambigous
>to me. I think, it should state it's use for name service lookups.
>How about DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB?

OK with me. These changes will go into the next revision of the draft.

Ken

---

From: Frank Strauss <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 May 1999 10:58:42 +0200

Hi!

>> longer than 32 characters. But note that this checker is work in

wkenneth> I did a manual scan and found that
wkenneth> traceRouteProbeHistoryLastReplyCode is longer than 32, so I
wkenneth> have changed it to traceRouteProbeHistoryLastRC.  This is
wkenneth> the only one that I found. Let me know if there are more.

No. This was the only one. Sorry, I could have named it in the first
message. I did not meant to really suggest to change the name. I don't
know any MIB parser that has problems with descriptors longer than 32
chars. I checked for this, just because it's recommended in the SMIv2
specs. 

If you keep the change, did you check for other descriptors containing
the pattern `ReplyCode' and whether they should also be changed to
`RC' for consistency?

 Frank