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

[Bob Natale <Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com>]

At 2/8/2003:07:09 AM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

Hi Bert,

>> ...
>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.

I agree.  And I think it ought to be specified in the
subject document as *the* proper way to do it.

Cheers,

BobN