[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now available
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Bob Natale wrote:
> If you are referring to this part of 2580:
>
> "5.4.3. Mapping of the OBJECT clause
> ...
> By definition, each object specified in an OBJECT clause follows a
> MODULE clause which names the information module in which that object
> is defined. Therefore, the use of an IMPORTS statement, to specify
> from where such objects are imported, is redundant and is not
> required in an information module."
>
> That is fine...it says that the MODULE clause is effectively an
> IMPORTS statement. No problem at all with that and it does not
> at all obviate or diminish the more general and prior guidance
> of 2578:
No, it certainly doesn't. If those definitions are used outside the
bounds of the compliance/capabilities statement, then I would say that
they must be imported. The conceptual view that I have of the issue is
similar to the scoping rules of C++. Importing symbols using IMPORTS is
like defining globals; the imported symbols can be used throughought the
document. Defining a symbol in the module its self overrides an import
with the same descriptor unless specified as 'module.descriptor' where
used. Symbols mentioned within a compliance/capabilities statement have
local scope like those in a function, and locally override the other more
global symbols if defined in the referenced module, but don't define
anything outside the confines of the compliance/capabilities statement.
--
Michael Kirkham
www.muonics.com