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

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

HI,

On this issue, I suggest that those with strong opinions write
some example MIB modules containing the MODULE-COMPILANCE and
AGENT-CAPABILITIES constructs.

I did this many years ago, and for me having the redundant IMPORTS
seemed a little silly.

Try it, and provide a URL to your example MIB modules.
Here is my example that contains two MIB modules. The first
has no imports and the second has imports.
http://www.snmpinfo.com/EX-MIB.txt


At 08:16 PM 12/8/2002 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>>>>> C M Heard writes:
>
>Mike> The item in question is this:
>
>Mike> Although exemptions to this general requirement are granted
>Mike> by RFC 2580 Sections 5.4.3 and 6.5.2 for names of objects
>Mike> appearing in the OBJECT clause of a MODULE-COMPLIANCE macro
>Mike> invocation or in the VARIATION clause of an AGENT-CAPABILITIES
>Mike> macro invocation, it is nonetheless RECOMMENDED by these
>Mike> guidelines that such symbols be included in the module's IMPORTS
>Mike> statement.
>
>I agree with this statement. I believe that two simple rules should
>be followed:
>
>(a) All items that must be imported from other MIB modules should be
>    imported in an IMPORTS clause.
>
>(b) If there is a name clash within a MIB module, the ambiguity is
>    resolved by using the <Module>.<descriptor> notation instead of
>    the <descriptor> notation.
>
>I believe that any syntax rules that aim to (a) provide shortcuts for
>MIB authors so they do not have to import or (b) try to accomodate
>broken implementations are counter productive and a pain in the longer
>term.
>
>/js

Regards,
/david t. perkins