Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:41:17 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl oids (was: Re: kvm question) Message-ID: <199901250041.QAA06023@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Jan 1999 17:01:11 EST." <199901242201.RAA17112@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> <<On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:11:12 -0800, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> said: > > > Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named, > > not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering > > of nodes. > > Nonsense. There are plenty of contexts in which a number makes far > more sense than a name -- pretty much anything in any network stack > other than Chaosnet, for example. If any of us ever make good on the > threat of SNMP integration, having fixed numerical identifiers will be > a requirement. A number can be a name, but a name not a number. It's obvious that enumerated objects need numeric identifiers, but not desirable to mandate the existence of numbers to match all names. Unless you want the IANA to step in of course. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901250041.QAA06023>