Re: LLDP MIBs

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>
> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:55 AM
> Subject: RE: LLDP MIBs
...

> It appears to me that the issue is whether an enumerated value MUST be
> specified in a DEFVAL by its name rather than its value. I don't see why
> it should make a difference as long as the value is one of the defined
> enumerations.
>
> Is this really an error?
...

I don't think so.

Although the examples of DEFVALs in RFC 2578 use names rather than
values, I don't see anything there or in the MIB review guidelines
that would make it a requirement.

I think one could even argue that page 27 of the MIB
review guidelines provides some motivation for preferring numbers
to names, even though the names are less human-hostile.

However, common practice seems to be to use the names.

Randy