Subject: expression mib notes

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jul 1999 22:21:46 -0700

These are about as last minute as you can get, but a couple minor
points about the expression draft, which I meant to read long before
now (that and the event mib which I didn't get to at all).  I've
*never* read them before, so these notes are from someone trying to
grasp the document as a first time reader (which is hopefully
valuable insight because of it).  Sadly, I didn't even finish my
reading, but that won't matter too much about the points:

1) Most importantly, I'd move Section 3.6 to after section 4.  The
   paragraph at the top of section 3.6 is right; therefore why not
   just move it to the point in the document where it'll make more
   sense.  (and of course, then delete the paragraph).

2) section 3, paragraph 2 "bby" -> "by"

3) 3.3.2, second paragraph "because of..." doesn't make much sense...
   That part of the sentence needs work (I'd suggest something, but
   I'm too tired at this point...  deleting the "of" is a start).

4) 3.3.2, last paragraph: 
      "the same value for the" -> "the same value type for the"
                                                  ^^^^
   This is misleading, as its not the "value" that should be the same
   but rather it's type.  The word "value" is used similarly in the
   rest of the document as well...  Slightly misleading.  (sorry I
   don't have references to the rest for you).

5) 3.3.3, second paragraph:  this sentence doesn't make much sense
   till you've read a lot farther on in the document.

6) 3.3.3 paragraph 5:  "continuously, every" -> "continuously, at every"

7) 3.3.4 paragraph 2:  wouldn't it be possible some-way not to use
   '0.0' as mandatory prefix?  That's kind of annoying as it
   will only waste space and serves no purpose.  The point, I assume,
   is that since the OID index segment must be a valid OID in itself
   that this is the only way to make it valid value to use as an
   index?  Ick.

8) 3.6.2 paragraph 4:  "only one object in the expression needs that
   check associated, since it applies to the whole expression".
   Another case where I'm talking without having read far enough in
   advance, but wouldn't it be a better idea to put this object in a
   different location in this case that applies to only the expression 
   itself rather than in an object that the expression uses?  Again,
   forgive my ignorance on this one...  If the meeting wasn't in about 
   4 hours from now...

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Distributed Computing Analysis and Support
University of California at Davis

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:41:15 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: expression mib notes
> From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
> Date: 13 Jul 1999 22:21:46 -0700
...
> reading, but that won't matter too much about the points:

The comments are appreciated.  However, we don't want Bob Stewart to
catch on to our nefarious plot to prevent him from retiring!  :-)

>    sense.  (and of course, then delete the paragraph).

I think it's fine where it is, but I'd leave the final call on this
to the editor.

> 2) section 3, paragraph 2 "bby" -> "by"

Agreed.

>    I'm too tired at this point...  deleting the "of" is a start).

I'd suggest replacing "because" with "as a consequence".
I think the current words are intelligible, but perhaps
that's because I think I know what they're trying to say.
I'd leave it to the editor's discretion.

>    don't have references to the rest for you).

I don't agree.  I believe the intent is to say that if we have a
wildcarded expression like Exp = f(A*, B*, C*), this does NOT mean
that we're working with the cross-product of the three sets of values,
but rather the set of triples <A[n], B[n], C[n]> for all n such that
Exists(A[n]) and Exists(B[n]) and Exists(C[n]).  This is confirmed by
the examples.

>    till you've read a lot farther on in the document.

Neither the problem nor the fix is clear to me.  Care to elaborate?

> 6) 3.3.3 paragraph 5:  "continuously, every" -> "continuously, at every"

Seems like a good idea.

>    that this is the only way to make it valid value to use as an

We've struggled with this before.  Unless we do something REALLY
ugly like mapping the thing to OCTET STRING, we're stuck with having
to stick something in this byte in order to be able to get the
full range for all the object identifier components.  Let's leave
it as is.

>    forgive my ignorance on this one...  If the meeting wasn't in about 

The effection of the expObjectConditional "bubbles up" to have the
same effect as it would have if it were simply bound to the whole
expression.  I suppose that a smart implementation might recognize
this (especially for scalars) to make short-circuiting the evaluation
possible.  Since the information controlling sampling, etc. is in
this table, I believe that this is where this object also belongs.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [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
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Any relationship between my opinions and BMC's is probably coincidental.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------