RE: Notification no object

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Right, but you can leave out the complete OBJECTS clause
I think, so that is how you would achive an null-set, no?

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 20:10
> To: mibs
> Subject: Re: Notification no object
> 
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: Tom Petch <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
> > Sent: Mar 9, 2005 11:17 AM
> > To: mibs <ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org>
> > 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.
> ...
> 
> The relevant part of RFC 2578 says:
> NOTIFICATION-TYPE MACRO ::=
> BEGIN
>     TYPE NOTATION ::=
>                   ObjectsPart
>                   "STATUS" Status
>                   "DESCRIPTION" Text
>                   ReferPart
> 
>     VALUE NOTATION ::=
>                   value(VALUE NotificationName)
> 
>     ObjectsPart ::=
>                   "OBJECTS" "{" Objects "}"
>                 | empty
> 
>     Objects ::=
>                   Object
>                 | Objects "," Object
> 
>     Object ::=
>                   value(ObjectName)
> 
> 
> This says that if "OBJECTS" is present, then it MUST be followed
> by a "{", which MUST be followed by at least one object name,
> and "," must appear between object names if there is more than one.
> 
> It sounds like smilint has it right.
> 
> Randy
>