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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: zondag 9 februari 2003 1:22
> 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:
> 
I did see those section 3.1 and 4.1 of 2580. 
They do state that you MUST define OBJECT GROUPS in the
same module and make sure that every object is present in
at least one OBJECT GROUP.

But I don't think that these 2 sections preclude/prohibit
that you can define additional OBJECT GROUPS in other modules,
does it? Maybe the SMIv2 authors can chime in here?

> - a compliance statement in module B may cite a group
> from module A in a MANDATORY-GROUPS clause;
> 
yep

> - a compliance statement in module B may cite a group
> from module A in a GROUP clause;
> 
yep

> - 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).
> 
yep.


And as far as I am concerned, you do not have to add text that
module B possibly could define another group that has a new
set of objects out of module A. (I am assuming here that I
am still correct that that is indeed legal and not prohibited.
If I am wrong at that, then it is a moot point altogether of
course).

Bert
> //cmh
> 
>