contiguous BITS question

[jcucchiara@mindspring.com]

HI Folks,

One of the MIB modules that is being reviewed for GMPLS
gives the following error because the BITS are not contiguous.
I have requested that the authors change this, but they are
hesitant because the enum reflects the actual TLV object 
that this managed object represents:

>
> E: f(IANA-GMPLS-MIB.my), (252,22) Named bits for BITS
> must be in contiguous positions
>
>       SYNTAX  BITS {
>                      delInProgress (0),
>                      adminDown (1),
>                      testing (2),
>                      reflect (31)
>                    }
>
>
> RFC2578 specifies that BITS should be contiguous
> (although there are exceptions to this, but this
> object does not seem to be an exception).


Here is the TLV that the object represents:

0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |R|                        Reserved                       |T|A|D|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Reflect (R): 1 bit
      Reserved: 28 bits
      Testing (T): 1 bit
      Administratively down (A): 1 bit
      Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit


I would like to be sure before pursuing this issue with the
MIB authors, that the enum as written does violate the SMI and
is not an exception per RFC2578. (My interpretation of RFC2578 
indicates that if there is a refinement of an enum that
the BITS may no longer be contiguous and that would be allowable,
but this is the original definition so should be contigous, correct?)

Thanks,
  -Joan