[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