RE: Notification no object

["Bob Natale" <bnatale@MEGISTO.com>]

Hi Tom,

I guess it depends on how you interpret "an ordered sequence" in the
following excerpt from RFC 2578:

8.1.  Mapping of the OBJECTS clause

   The OBJECTS clause, which need not be present, defines an ordered
   sequence of MIB object types. ...

To me, an empty list is neither an ordered sequence nor even a sequence
at all.  (But I have not checked whether ASN.1 feels differently about
that statement! :).

So, I'd recommend just not including the OBJECTS clause at all as the
safest way to comply and surest way to achieve interoperability with
most MIB compilers.

Cheers,
BobN

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Petch
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:17 PM
> To: mibs
> Subject: Notification no object
> 
> Is it valid to have a notification with an empty OBJECTS { } clause?
> 
> Smilint seems to complain about an unexpected } when 
> presented with such.
> 
> RFC2578 seems silent on this.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
>