Re: Compliance Statements

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

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> > > - page 25 2nd bullet
> > >   I actually wonder if it would not be better if people did
> > >   list all the enumerations at the first revision of a MIB
> > >   and the compliance statements. That way... it is clear 
> > >   from the beginning what it is that one can expect.
> > > 
> > >   Of course some enumerations do not need that, because they
> > >   are [not] intended to be extended, and that is OK.
> > 
> > I think RFC 2580 already says that.  Do we need to repeat it
> > here?  The document is already pretty long, and it's not getting
> > any shorter.
> > 
> I may not have been clear. What I meant to say is:
> Suppose you have in the first version of a MIB MOdule
> 
>    someObject OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX      INTEGER {
>                       enum1(1),
>                       enum2(2)
>                       }
>        MAX-ACCESS  read-create
>        STATUS      current
>        DESCRIPTION "Some descr"
> 
> Then I would think if any COMPLIANCE statement in that MIB Module
> could have (from the start):
>   
>     OBJECT someObject
>     SYNTAX INTEGER   {
>                       enum1(1),
>                       enum2(2)
>                      }
> 
> So that it is automatically covered if anyone at any time later
> adds something to the enumerations.

Yes, this is what I understood from the beginning, and I think RFC
2580 already has some advice to this effect.  I will have some other
stuff that I need to do today so I will have to follow up on this
later.

Mike