Capwap Mailing List: 答复: 答复: The Status of the CAPWAP WG MIB issues

[young (young]

Hi, All:

OK. I think so: the reuse of existing TC's

Regards
Richard

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca [at] avaya.com] 
发送时间: 2009年12月21日 21:09
收件人: Bert (IETF) Wijnen; young
抄送: yzhang [at] fortinet.com; capwap [at] frascone.com; elwynd [at] 
dial.pipex.com;
Black_David [at] emc.com
主题: RE: [Capwap] 答复: The Status of the CAPWAP WG MIB issues

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert (IETF) Wijnen [mailto:bertietf [at] bwijnen.net] 

> > capwapBaseWtpProfileWtpName OBJECT-TYPE
> >
> > SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(1..512))
> >
> 
> OK, that is good for the SIZE (although 1 seems very short. 
> But that is what the RFC5415 specifies, so fine). But RFC5415 
> slaso states that it is a UTF-8 string, ans so does your 
> DESCRITPION clause. So I would STRONGLY recommend to use 
> longUtf8String as the SYNTAX. You have to import it from the 
> SYSAPPL-MIB [RFC2287]: Or, if you do not want to epend on 
> that RFC, then define a UTF-8 based TC yourself. That is to 
> say, I would prefer a UTF-8 based TC as SYNTAX over a OCTET-STRING.
> OCTET STRING is not strictly an error though, so if the WG 
> really wants to keep that, then pls check with yoru AD if he 
> is OK with that.
> 
> Bert

I actually favor the reuse of existing TC's - so better in my opinion IMPORT
from RFC 2287 rather than define a new TC. 

Dan