Re: Guidelines Section 4.6.4 (OID Values Assigned to Objects)

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

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Michael Kirkham wrote:
> > I think a 'SHOULD NOT' would also be beneficial in this section 
> > with regards to registering OIDs to objects that are subordinate
> > to, e.g., NOTIFICATION-TYPEs, MODULE-COMPLIANCEs, etc.  [ ... ]
> > You mention this type of organization elsewhere (e.g. in the
> > notifications section, recommending against defining notifications
> > under objects/groups/etc.), but the reverse is also just as bad.
> 
> I meant to [include] some text to that effect here, but overlooked it
> in the hurry to finish.  I'd like to get feedback from the other
> MIB reviewers as to whether it would add value or would just be bloat
> (and if the latter, whether the stuff I put in about not registering
> notifications in strange places is also bloat).

Well, nobody said anything one way or another, and I think some text
would be useful.  So I propose to add the following paragraph at the
end of Section 4.6.4:

   Although it is not specifically required by the SMI, it is customary
   (and strongly RECOMMENDED) that object definitions not be registered
   beneath group definitions, compliance statements, capabilities
   statements, or notification definitions.  It is also customary (and
   strongly RECOMMENDED) that group definitions, compliance statements,
   capabilities statements, and notification definitions not be
   registered beneath object definitions.

Any objections?

//cmh