Re: question on SMIv2 compliance statements

[Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>]

I can think of a use for it (e.g., different syntax required under
different circumstances). However, section 5.4.3 of RFC 2580 says:

   The OBJECT clause, which need not be present, is repeatedly used to
   specify each MIB object for which compliance has a refined
   requirement with respect to the MIB module definition.

I believe the phrase "a refined requirement" allows a compliance to
have only one refined requirement for each object.  Therefore, I agree
with Dave.

If you need different syntax under different circumstances, you have
to use multiple compliance statements, one for each circumstance.

Keith.

> The below is illegal, as well as duplicate GROUP specifications
> in module-compls, and duplicate specifications in agent-caps. 
> 
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Is the following legal in SMIv2 (RFC 2580)?
> > 
> > xyzMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
> >     [...]
> >     OBJECT	foo
> >     SYNTAX	[...]
> >     DESCRIPTION "..."
> >     OBJECT	foo
> >     SYNTAX	[...]
> >     DESCRIPTION "..."
> >     [...]
> > 
> > In other words: Is it legal to have multiple OBJECT statements for the
> > same object in a single MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro invocation?
> > 
> > What do existing compilers do in this case?
> > 
> > /js
> 
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins
> 
> 
>