Re: Check enumerations

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Correct.  In fact we don't do version numbering in MIB modules.  There is
a very restricted list of permissible changes (see RFC 2578 Sec 10) that
are supposed to ensure backward compatibility.  Editorial changes to
DESCRIPTION clauses are among the permissible changes.

Since it may take a while to get a new RFC published, it would probably
be a good idea to submit an erratum to the RFC Editor.

//cmh