Subject: VCI textual convention

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:52:47 -0500

The current draft says:

  IpoaVciInteger ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS     current
      DESCRIPTION
          "An integer large enough to hold a VCI."
      SYNTAX     Integer32 (0..65535)

In IPOA, the actual lowerbound is 32 since VCI values below 32 are
reserved and not available for user traffic.  It would be useful to
make that change here.

	paul

---

From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:50:27 -0800 (PST)

I know it's not kosher, but there are people who use PVCs with VCIs
less than 32.  SO, I thionk it should remain as (0..65535).

One change which is appropriate (even if pedantic) is that this Textual
Convention should only ever be used for a VCI.  Therefore, the
DESCRIPTION should describe it as the value of a VCI, rather than as an
INTEGER which happens to be the right size for a VCI.

Keith.

---

From: Paul Koning <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:12:27 -0500

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]> writes:

 Keith> I know it's not kosher, but there are people who use PVCs with
 Keith> VCIs less than 32.  SO, I thionk it should remain as
 Keith> (0..65535).

One of the reasons for my suggestion was to help the user interface.
Given a user interface that takes MIB information to construct helpful
prompts (such as "VCI: enter a number between 0 and 65535") it would
be good if the MIB specified the correct lower bound.

	paul

---

From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:52:51 -0800 (PST)

> be good if the MIB specified the correct lower bound.
 
Right.  0..65535 is the maximum range.  The actual value may be
restricted further both by the reservation of 0..32 on the low end, and
by the values negotiated by the ILMI (max # of bits, max value, etc.)
on the high end.

Keith.