Randy I would suggest some wording if I knew what was intended but as yet, I don't:-(. I suspect that Bill's description - use the next available integer in sequence - may be what is intended but, for me, that is not the sense of the words. Off list:-(, I did get a different interpretation - from one who was involved in the earlier discussion of monotonic - that any index value would do as long as the order of the entries in the table matched the order of the hops. So I still think that there is a minor ambiguity here
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Presuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bill Fenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bill Strahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "iesg" <[email protected]>; "ietf" <[email protected]> Cc: "Disman" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:16 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping,Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard > Hi - > > If the document gives a false impression that the values of > traceRouteHopsHopIndex could be interpreted as hop numbers, > an editorial change to dispel that notion would make sense. > (Likewise, if "consecutive integers starting at one" was the intent, and > is what current implementations actually do, then we should say so.) > > I can see how the last two sentences of the last paragraph of > the DESCRIPTION might lead to such a reading. Does > someone have some replacement text they'd like to propose > to make things clearer? > > Randy, disman chair > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Fenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bill Strahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "iesg" <[email protected]>; > "ietf" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:48 PM > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping,Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard > > > Juergen, > > I assumed, from reading in traceRouteHopsHopIndex about the behavior > when a path changes, that the only safe thing for a manager to do is > to read the hops from the table and render them to the user in order > of increasing traceRouteHopsHopIndex but without necessarily showing > the traceRouteHopsHopIndex to the user -- that it was perfectly > reasonable for hops 1,2,3,4 of a 4-hop path to be numbered 1,8,12,35 > (assuming that they started 1,2,3,4 but there were lots of path > changes during the test). > > I think some people are assuming that the intention was that the > values should be 1,2,3,4 (i.e., HopIndex == hop number) and that's why > they're asking for a different definition. Perhaps the right > direction could be to clarify that there is no connection between the > value of HopIndex and traceroute hop, other than the ordering. > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
