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

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 01:20 PM 1/28/2003 -0800, C. M. Heard wrote:
>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."


This has come up in Cisco MIB reviews. MIB writers want to
do this but end up changing the TC to the base type name
to make mosy happy.

Why would it be considered a feature to support a different
SYNTAX clause in an OBJECT-TYPE macro than is allowed in
an OBJECT macro?  This seems like a bug in the SMI (or CONF
or whatever).

Andy


>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