Re: MODULE COMPLIANCE

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 12:13 PM 1/7/2003 -0800, David T. Perkins wrote:
>HI,
>
>On the below, the object would be in an included group. And while
>"legal", it is incompatible with standard track documents.
>In standards tract documents there MUST NOT be any "completely
>optional" portions. 

What?  I disagree.  This should be decided on a case-by-case
basis by the WG.  I would change MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT in
your sentence above.  Sometimes a WG will agree on the
way to model a particular data element, but not agree
on its importance or applicability to all platforms.
Sometimes the WG cannot agree on the condition clause 
for the OBJECT or GROUP DESCRIPTION clause.  In these
cases, it is still better to include the object than
remove it and force proprietary MIB object usage instead.

Andy



>At 09:03 PM 1/7/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>In document draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsec-conf-mib-05.txt
>>
>>I see in the MODULE-COMPLIACNE things like:
>>
>>          OBJECT      ihfLastChanged
>>          MIN-ACCESS  not-accessible
>>          DESCRIPTION
>>               "This object not required for compliance."
>>
>>I don't think I have seen this ever before
>>
>>Do we believe that that is the proper way do this?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Bert 
>Regards,
>/david t. perkins