Subject: RE: [Policy] ENUM property values

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 00:56:38 -0800

RE: [Policy] ENUM property valuesFollowing up on this thread, DMTF's CIM
uses 0 as "unknown".  We try to avoid using it for other enum values, for
consistency.

Andrea
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Pana, Mircea
  Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:47 AM
  To: [email-masked]'; IETF Policy (E-mail)
  Subject: RE: [Policy] ENUM property values

  Is 0 (zero) avoided in the model(s) to allow implementations to reserve it
for special situations that are outside the scope of the model? Are there
examples where 0 (zero) makes an implementation less robust?

  Thanks,
  Mircea.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Marcus Brunner [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:37 AM
  To: Pana, Mircea; IETF Policy (E-mail)
  Subject: Re: [Policy] ENUM property values

  I normally is good practice to start enums with 1 (Most of the MIB
  definition follow this practice). Normally, it makes implemetnations more
  robust when starting with 1.

  Marcus

  --On Montag, 2. Dezember 2002 08:54 -0600 "Pana, Mircea"
  <[email-masked]> wrote:

  >
  > Most ENUM property values in Policy documents use consecutive integers
  > starting at 1. The integer value 0 (zero) is skipped. Was there a
  > particular reason for this? Some implementers would prefer such values
to
  > start at 0.
  > Thanks,
  > Mircea.

  --------------------------------------
  Dr. Marcus Brunner
  Network Laboratories
  NEC Europe Ltd.

  E-Mail: [email-masked]
  WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
  Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
  personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus