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

[Michael Kirkham <mikek@muonics.com>]

Whether or not it comes up in IETF MIB documents, it does come up in
general.  See this thread, for example, from just a couple days ago:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&th=151dd149f9f9d8c6&seekm=c_63a.1227%24_c6.102874%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net#link1

Hard to say whether it doesn't come up in IETF MIB documents because
people are aware of the issues and just don't do it, or if they use tools
that bomb out on it and so make the corrections ahead of time.

It may seem at first glance that this might be another item that just
pertains to compatibility with broken tools (as with some of the other
suggestions that have been rejected), but such layouts do carry with them
several problems for future revisions of the module (that the others
don't).

At any rate.. I brought this item up only because the other sections of
the document contained similar wording, but the section for objects
didn't.  It should be consistent, if nothing else, IMHO.  If you leave it
out of the objects section, it should probably be left out of the others
as well.  I think you should leave it in, though, given the problems it
causes beyond simple compatibility with broken tools.

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:39:29 +0100
> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> To: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Cc: Michael Kirkham <mikek@muonics.com>
> Subject: RE: Guidelines Section 4.6.4 (OID Values Assigned to Objects)
>
> I do not have a strong objection.
>
> At the other hand, I am not aware that we have had
> these type of problems in (IETF) MIB documents, so
> it seems to add stuff that is (mostly) not needed?
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> > Sent: maandag 17 februari 2003 2:18
> > To: Mreview (E-mail)
> > Cc: Michael Kirkham
> > Subject: Re: Guidelines Section 4.6.4 (OID Values Assigned to Objects)
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>

--
Michael Kirkham
www.muonics.com