RE: Question on style of deprecating objects and tables

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I don't think we have any (CL) rules or even guidelines for that.
I know we do set some sort of a (maybe badd) example in RFC3418,
where we have pmoved all obsoleted objects to the end of the MIB 
module, even after the MODULE COMPLIANCE section.

I am not 100% sure what I would prefer. But I have these thoughts:

- if there is just a few obsoleted objects, I think they best stay
  inline where they were roiginally located.
- if there are many, then I guess I prefer them to be somewhere
  collected in a separate place (certainly obsoleted, but not
  deprecated ones I think).
- one ould insert a one line comment for objects that have been
  moved away, something aka:

    --  snmpOutPkts ::= { snmp 2 } has been obsoleted

- maybe better would be to keep it in place, but instead of (RFC3418):
   snmpOutPkts OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX      Counter32
       MAX-ACCESS  read-only
       STATUS      obsolete
       DESCRIPTION 
               "The total number of SNMP Messages which were
               passed from the SNMP protocol entity to the
               transport service."
       ::= { snmp 2 }
  do something aka:
   snmpOutPkts OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX      Counter32
       MAX-ACCESS  read-only
       STATUS      obsolete
       DESCRIPTION "*********** OBSOLETED object **************
                   The total number of SNMP Messages which were
                   passed from the SNMP protocol entity to the
                   transport service."
       ::= { snmp 2 }

  so that it is somewhat clearer. In fact, rfc3418 does not follow 
  the guideline that the DESCRIPTION clause of an obsoleted (or 
  deprecated) object should explain why the object was obsoleted
  or deprecated... so that people get a better understanding of
  the backgrounds of such actions.

Oh well
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 07:12
> To: jcucchiara@mindspring.com; mreview@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Question on style of deprecating objects and tables
> 
> 
> I do not know if this is the rule, or if there is any rule, 
> but I prefer
> to leave the objects at their original location. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> > jcucchiara@mindspring.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:44 AM
> > To: mreview@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Question on style of deprecating objects and tables
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Everyone,
> > 
> > When a MIB is being revised and scalar objects and tables 
> > within the MIB module are being deprecated, should these 
> > deprecated objects/tables be moved from their location in the 
> > original MIB Module?
> > 
> > Currently, the author has done this and has a comment and put 
> > a comment of
> > -- Deprecated Objects
> > 
> > The downside as I see it is that the numbers are out of order 
> > for a person reading the MIB.  The upside is that the 
> > deprecated objects are sort of in their own section.
> > 
> > Just wondering what the current practices are?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Joan
> > 
> > 
> > 
>