[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: section 3.2 of draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> I did see those section 3.1 and 4.1 of 2580.
> They do state that you MUST define OBJECT GROUPS in the
> same module and make sure that every object is present in
> at least one OBJECT GROUP.
> But I don't think that these 2 sections preclude/prohibit
> that you can define additional OBJECT GROUPS in other modules,
> does it? Maybe the SMIv2 authors can chime in here?
The wording in RFC 2580 seems quite clear to me. See the second
sentence of each of the paragraphs quoted below.
3.1. Mapping of the OBJECTS clause
The OBJECTS clause, which must be present, is used to specify each
object contained in the conformance group. Each of the specified
objects must be defined in the same information module as the
OBJECT-GROUP macro appears, and must have a MAX-ACCESS clause value
of "accessible-for-notify", "read-only", "read-write", or "read-
[ ... ]
4.1. Mapping of the NOTIFICATIONS clause
The NOTIFICATIONS clause, which must be present, is used to specify
each notification contained in the conformance group. Each of the
specified notifications must be defined in the same information
module as the NOTIFICATION-GROUP macro appears.
I interpret the words
Each of the specified ... must be defined in the same information
module as [the one in which] the ... macro appears.
to mean that module B can't import notifications or objects from
module A and define a group that includes them. To put it another
another way: every group defineed in module B may contain only
objects or notifications defined in module B.
P.S. smilint apparently does not enforce this rule. I've not yet checked
whether other MIB compilers do.