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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I have (this was a while ago) checked with the 3 editors
of SMIv2 (STD 58) documents and back then they basically
had rough consensus that this was allowed. I must admit that 
Dave Perkins had some objections... and his SMICng still
complains about it. For all I remember he promised me to
fix it, or at least make it controllable with a switch.
smilint accepts it as far as I know.

In any event, this is what I have been telling MIB authors
for some 2 years now I think. 

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 28 januari 2003 22:21
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Anyone wants to do a double check on an IPCDN mib?
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>