Hi - If the document gives a false impression that the values of traceRouteHopsHopIndex could be interpreted as hop numbers, an editorial change to dispel that notion would make sense. (Likewise, if "consecutive integers starting at one" was the intent, and is what current implementations actually do, then we should say so.) I can see how the last two sentences of the last paragraph of the DESCRIPTION might lead to such a reading. Does someone have some replacement text they'd like to propose to make things clearer? Randy, disman chair ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Fenner" <fenner@xxxxxxxxx> To: <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Bill Strahm" <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>; "iesg" <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; "ietf" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping,Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard Juergen, I assumed, from reading in traceRouteHopsHopIndex about the behavior when a path changes, that the only safe thing for a manager to do is to read the hops from the table and render them to the user in order of increasing traceRouteHopsHopIndex but without necessarily showing the traceRouteHopsHopIndex to the user -- that it was perfectly reasonable for hops 1,2,3,4 of a 4-hop path to be numbered 1,8,12,35 (assuming that they started 1,2,3,4 but there were lots of path changes during the test). I think some people are assuming that the intention was that the values should be 1,2,3,4 (i.e., HopIndex == hop number) and that's why they're asking for a different definition. Perhaps the right direction could be to clarify that there is no connection between the value of HopIndex and traceroute hop, other than the ordering. Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf