Subject: RE: r.upper_bound

From: "Ayers, Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 12:27:28 -0500

> From: Mark Ellison [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> I've always believed:
> 
>        (r.range_subid == 0)  /\  (sub_id[r.range_subid - 1] 
> <= r_upper_bound)

	I take it you're using 0 offset indexing here, as opposed to the 1
offset indexing of r.range_subid, therefore the "- 1", yes?  If so, then
this behavior is exactly what I expected.

>       (sub_id[r.range_subid - 1] == r.upper_bound) is a 
> degenerate condition, so
> is considered optional, imho

	Agreed.  There are some specifications better left undeclared.

> The u.upper_bound text on p29 indicates its the upper bound 
> of the range
> sub-identifier.  Possibly this text isn't where you need it?  
> What text would
> you suggest to clarify?

	How about (from page 25):

<SUGGEST>

      r.upper_bound

            The upper bound of a sub-identifier's range.  This field is
            present only if r.range_subid is not 0, and must be greater
            in value than the subid indicated by r.range_subid.

</SUGGEST>

	Why am I picking this nit, you ask?  I tripped over an oddity while
debugging, and made a cursory check that r.upper_bound could not be 0 (at
least for a registration with no 0s in its OID) and found the text too weak
to be certain (could wraparound registration be permitted?).  Therefore I
came here.  Figure we can save someone else the trip.

/|/|ike

---

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:14:58 -0400

Mike,

I salute your excellency in nits :-)  ...and yes, I'm using 0 offset indexing
in the p.notation below.

Now, I'd like to solicit comments from the list on the suggested text with
respect to existing text on p.26 for the first paragraph.as follows:

      r.upper_bound

Do others see a need to amend the suggested text?  Or is it best left as is?

Regards,

Mark