RE: Time to Revise the TC list

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

On Fri, 5 May 2006, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > If the TCs live by themselves in a separate MIB module -- which is
> > often, but not always the case -- then I agree with this.  However,
> > TCs that reside in a MIB module with other definitions cannot be
> > moved into another MIB module, since that would break MIB modules
> > that import those TCs.  So it's not possible to split such TCs out
> > into a separate document.
> > 
> 
> Maybe I should have said "copied" instead of "moved". 
> I know it would cause a name clash, but I do not see any technical
> problems with that. Over time, when the old MIB gets revised, the old
> definitions can be obsoleted.

Yes, we do have a rule in RFC 2579 that "all names used for the
textual conventions defined in all ``standard'' information modules
shall be unique" but there are cases where this is violated with no
apparent ill consequence -- for instance, OwnerString is defined in
both IF-MIB (where it is deprecated) and RMON-MIB (where it is not).

//cmh