Re: Notification no object

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>]

Thanks for that, I think you have it spot on; I read the text in RFC2578 but not
the formal definition:-(

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: "mibs" <ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:09 PM
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
>