Special protocol contraints expressed in MIBs

[Kevin Lingle <klingle@cisco.com>]

hi,

is it illegal to define a mib such that you are constraining it's
implementors to use specific protocol constructs (not sure if that's
the righ term or not).

for example, if you have an application that has very significant
security requirements, would it be wrong to define a mib for which
SNMPv3 is an explicit requirement for implementations?

or, if you have a requirement that a notification be reliable, 
is it wrong to explicitly state in the description that Informs 
must be used for that notification?

is there any section of snmp std rfcs that can be used to support
the idea that such practices are either illegal (from a snmp std
point of view) or strongly discouraged (from a normal mib design
conventions point of view)?

if it's not illegal to do such things, is it regarded as highly improper?
if so, why?

if there is no legal exclusion for such practices in the rfcs, how
does one oppose such issues when they are manifested in a MIB module
under design?

is there anything that AGENT-CAPABILITIES can do to help out in
these situations?  such that the mib may be defined generally
(without such impositions of protocol) but implementations of
that mib may be so constrained by virtual of how the agent-capabilites
are defined.

thanks for the insight!
kevin
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Kevin R. Lingle       919.392.2029
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=