Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

What is the latest version of this document? Shouldn't we look at
draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-02.txt? 

In any case, it does not make to much sense for a vendorID object which
is always as I can understand a positive integer to be something else
than an Unsigned32. RFC 4181 actually says that INTEGER MUST NOT be used
in such cases.

I think draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-02 fixed this. 

Dan
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Glen Zorn
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:08 PM
> To: mark.jones at bridgewatersystems.com
> Cc: dime at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of 
> draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
> 
> Hi, Mark.  I've been reconstructing the latest (unpublished) 
> version of th8is draft & going through the archives to make 
> sure that the new rev will cover all the comments.  Anyway, 
> at some point in the past you wrote "I have reviewed this 
> draft and only have one comment: The dbpPeerVendorId should be
> Unsigned32 rather than enumerated INTEGER."  I see that I 
> agreed to this change, but I'm wondering what the rationale 
> might be...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>