Re: Fw: MIB Dr. Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-05.txt

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 07:04:48AM -0400, jcucchiara@mindspring.com wrote:
 
> Just wanted to bring up the subject of placement for
> deprecated objects.  This is no current guideline and
> it appears as though, one of the ADs has been advised
> several times to put deprecated objects at the end of the
> MIB Module.
> 
> I'd like to reach a consensus on this and perhaps create
> a MIB guideline.   The outcome is basically the same for the
> MIB Module (assuming MIB tools do the right thing) but when reading
> the MIB Module, there are certainly implications when putting objects
> near the end of the module.  In my experience, deprecated objects
> are usually implemented,  because customers want them.
> 
> Any thoughts here?   If there is no strong interest and both ways
> are acceptable, that would be good to know also.

I fail to see which problem is fixed by defining a guideline where to
put deprecated objects in a MIB module - for me this does not really
matter.

The only thing that is really important is to mention in the
DESCRIPTION clauses _why_ objects have been deprecated (which might be
just a pointer to the place where the details are described).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany