Re: InetAddressType and InetAddress

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Andy Bierman writes:

Andy> This issue comes up in Cisco MIB reviews all the time.  We
Andy> routinely put OBJECT clauses like you have above in the
Andy> DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement.  (Take
Andy> out the double quotes of course.)

Andy> The SMI should be changed to allow OBJECT clauses for INDEX
Andy> objects.  

I do agree with this. I recall a similar discussion and the end result
was (if I recall correctly) to put something in a DESCRIPTION clause
or in a comment.

Andy> There is no reason they should be prohibited because an INDEX
Andy> object is prohibited from being present in an OBJECT-GROUP list.
Andy> While I'm on a rant, forcing INDEX objects to (usually) be
Andy> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible is one of the dumbest things we ever
Andy> did in the SMI.  All of these CLRs (and 100s more!)  make MIB
Andy> writing confusing.  I want the SMIng WG to rewrite RFC 2580 (but
Andy> that's another thread ;-)

Not sure I agree with the rest. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>