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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 05:09:57 -0400

Frank,

>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.

I have no problem with keeping the names less than or equal to 32
characters.

>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?

There is also one in the Ping Mib that i will change as well to RC instead
of ReplyCode.

Ken

---

From: "Shawn A. Routhier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 99 17:55:23 -0400

From: [email-masked]
   X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS
   cc: [email-masked]
   Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 05:09:57 -0400
   Mime-Version: 1.0
   Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   Content-Disposition: inline
   Sender: [email-masked]
   Precedence: bulk

   Frank,

The 32 character suggestion isn't for the parsing side of a mib compiler.
It's for sections that generate code.  If the descriptors are less
than 32 characters it's more likely the code generation sections will
be able to use them to create names that the eventual code compiler
will find unique.

sar