RE: section 3.2 of draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > I wanted to get a quick answer on this topic because there are
> > other folks asking for the same thing, and I feel quite strongly
> > that there are many cases where it should not be done.
> > 
> Well, in cases where MIB module A only requires a piece of some
> other MIB module B (ideally that would be at the level of a
> OBJECT-GROUP already defined in MIB module B, but if not, then
> Module A may want to define a new group of objects out of
> MIB module B), then it seems best to me if Module A indeed
> includes that formally in a module compliance statement.
> I think RFC3289 is another good example for this, where it
> required the ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup of IF-MIB (so not
> the complete IF-MIB) and specified it as follows:
> 
>     MODULE IF-MIB -- The interfaces MIB, RFC2863
>     MANDATORY-GROUPS {
>        ifCounterDiscontinuityGroup
>     }
> 
> I think such is REALLY GOOD practice. In fact I think
> such is the proper way to do it.
> 
> Hope [this] explains my view of it.

Indeed, I agree with this principle, and especially with this
particular example.

I'll draft some new text to cover these points and run it by
everyone sometime next week.

Thanks,

Mike