Brian,
If interpreted literally, the following language in the DESCRIPTION
clauses for inetCidrRouteDest and inetCidrRoutePfxLen seems to
prohibit having a non-zero zone index in inetCidrRouteDest:
The values for the index objects inetCidrRouteDest and
inetCidrRoutePfxLen must be consistent. When the value
of inetCidrRouteDest is x, then the bitwise logical-AND
of x with the value of the mask formed from the
corresponding index object inetCidrRoutePfxLen MUST be
equal to x. If not, then the index pair is not
consistent and an inconsistentName error must be
returned on SET or CREATE requests.
This is so because the mask formed from inetCidrRoutePfxLen is
contiguous and does not include the zone index part. Thus, the
bitwise logical-AND of the value of inetCidrRouteDest and the value
of the mask formed from the corresponding index object
inetCidrRoutePfxLen will necessarily have zeroes in the zone index
position.
It seems to me that an easy fix for this problem would be to alter
the text to exclude the zone index from the comparison. Here is
my suggestion:
The values for the index objects inetCidrRouteDest and
inetCidrRoutePfxLen must be consistent. When the value
of inetCidrRouteDest (excluding the zone index, if one
is present) is x, then the bitwise logical-AND
of x with the value of the mask formed from the
corresponding index object inetCidrRoutePfxLen MUST be
equal to x. If not, then the index pair is not
consistent and an inconsistentName error must be
returned on SET or CREATE requests.
Thanks,
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
