RE: Importing items used in MODULE-COMPLIANCE and AGENT-CAPABILITIES

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

Take a step back. The reason for the recommendation from Mike was to
accommodate MIB compilers. I was trying to point out that one accommodation
could result in other problems.

If a MIB compiler is written correctly and completely (which to me
seems sort of strange, since SMIv2 does not subset), then we have
no issue.

At 06:35 PM 12/6/2002 -0600, Presuhn, Randy wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 16:10
>> To: C. M. Heard; Mreview (E-mail)
>> Subject: Re: Importing items used in MODULE-COMPLIANCE and
>> AGENT-CAPABILITIES
>...
>> Consider the following...
>...
>
>The presence of the IMPORTs should neither help nor hinder
>a compiler in this example, but it could be a big help
>for a human trying to get a quick understandanding of
>the inter-module dependencies.
>
>...
>> For MIB compilers that simply skip over the MODULE-COMPLIANCE and
>> AGENT-CAPABILITIES, leaving out the IMPORTS is a big win!
>...
>
>I don't see how.  A compiler still needs to be able to
>cope with IMPORTs, including those of "unreferenced" symbols.
>Remember, the proposal was not to REQUIRE the IMPORTs, only
>to RECOMMEND.  I think the rationale about "helping" some
>compilers is a red herring.  If that were the *sole* rationale,
>then the RECOMMENDation would more properly be a REQUIREment.
>
>>From my perspective, the value of including these in IMPORTs
>is to humans, rather than compilers.

Regards,
/david t. perkins