Re: Check enumerations

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

> The TruthValue was used.
> But in text they used the incorrect numbers.
> We (MIB doctors) missed it. Appology.
> Blame it on me please and not on any other MIB doctor.
>
> It also shows (in my view) that the WG did not really read very
carefully!!??

Blame it on the WG chairs.

But it does bring up the usual point: the WG knows the protocols but not
SNMP.

Fortunately, the damage is relatively limited in this case because users
of TruthValue are more likely to be guided by 'true' and 'false' than by
the values 1 and 2.

We will obviously be doing a bis for this. I *think* that there are no
backwards compatibility issues, but I'm checking with implementors on the
list.

Any advice for doing a bis of a MIB RFC? I don't think we need to do any
version numbering because there is no change to the module except in the
description clauses.

Thanks,
Adrian