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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

This is actually bothering me a little. It looks like we have some kind of granularity problem in re-using objects from an existing MIB module. Does this mean that if I need to re-use some objects from module A in module B, I have no other choice but to take the full group, as defined in the compliance statements of module A? What if I need just a few, or maybe just one object from module A, and there is no group in the compliance statements restricted to such a granularity? 

(see the recent proposal by Andy Bierman about a new object to clarify TimeFilter TC behavior, and the subsequent thread about this object being part of probeConfig group). 

Thanks,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 2:22 AM
> To: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: section 3.2 of 
> draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt
> 
> 
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > > Module A may want to define a new group of objects out of
> > > MIB module B
> 
> I overlooked this in my earlier reply.  It is not legal
> for module A to define a group of objects from module B.
> Conformance groups MUST be defined in the same module as
> the objects or notifications that they contain.  See
> Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of RFC 2580.  So I think there are
> really only three possibilities:
> 
> - a compliance statement in module B may cite a group
> from module A in a MANDATORY-GROUPS clause;
> 
> - a compliance statement in module B may cite a group
> from module A in a GROUP clause;
> 
> - a compliance statement in module B may state in its
> DESCRIPTION clause that module A is a prerequisite
> (and may optionally mention a specific compliance
> statement from module A that is required).
> 
> //cmh
> 
> 
>