Re: Anyone wants to do a double check on an IPCDN mib?

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> The document to chekc is: 
> 
>   draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-08.txt
> 
> I have done a couple of rounds of reviews and for some
> things I was unable to convince them (for example
> the fact that in my view they duplicate too much from
> RC2669)
> 
> I am kind of ready to say that it passes MIB Doctor 
> review, unless anyone finds a serious issue.
> 
> I suggest that whoever starts reviewing/checking posts so
> to this list, so that we do not end up with too many
> people doing duplicate work.

I'm not going to do a complete review, however, I do have
one question:  have we settled whether this is going to
be considered legal syntax

   OBJECT docsSubMgtCpeIpAddressType
       SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1) }
       DESCRIPTION
           "An implementation is only required to support IPv4
            addresses."

even though RFC 2578/2579/2580 (through provisions incorporated
from ISO 8824) apparently DO NOT allow it?

I need an answer, and a justification for the answer, to
incorporate in the MIB reviewer's guide.  As I said the
last time I asked this question, a pointer to a definitive
public discussion of the issue is OK;  I looked but did not
find one.

Thanks,

//cmh