[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Robert Story wrote:
> >3.2.1. The rowIdentifier
> > A more meaningful representation for rowIdentifier is now possible:
> > rowIdentifier = <vb.name=tableEntryPart,
> > vb.type=OID,
> > vb.value=0.1.instancePart>
> Why not use vb.name=tablePart and save one more byte? The tableEntry sub-id
> is always 1, so why not make it implicit?
This may be a good idea. Can't think of why not to do it.
If I hear no objections, I'll try to work it into the next
draft unless some glitch with that idea later comes to mind.
> Why not define a new type, OID-INDEX, which didn't have any restrictions on
> the first byte, and save another byte?
This first draft wanted to re-use existing PDU structures
and types so as to get a feel for a "simple" way of doing
things. If we start defining new PDU structures, etc, then
since the cat's out of the bag, there may be numerous approaches
and PDU designs to maximize optimization. I personally have no
objection with new PDU structures and types and thingies if that's
the WG consensus. The current draft shows how to get a fairly
efficient PDU out of existing structures without the drawbacks
(whatever they may be) of an approach where we squeeze out the
last few wasted bytes by defining highly optimized structures.