[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Type definision issue in rfc2578

To: Wilson@WSSPL.com
Subject: Re: Type definision issue in rfc2578
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:34:25 +0200
Cc: rap@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <30BFDEA66FF4D41191EB00D0B765BC6F05B90B@medha.wsspl.com> (messagefrom Wilson on Thu, 16 May 2002 15:17:23 +0530)
References: <30BFDEA66FF4D41191EB00D0B765BC6F05B90B@medha.wsspl.com>


>>>>> Wilson  writes:

Wilson> I have some doubt in the types defined in the RFC2578, and its
Wilson> usage in RFC3159.

Wilson> In RFC2578 the type defintion for ExtUTCTime is said not to be
Wilson> imported by any MIB definition, but the RFC3159 is using the
Wilson> MIB definition convention to define the frame work for PIB
Wilson> defintions, and it is importing the ExtUTCTime, as per the
Wilson> RFC2578 which not to be allowed.

The COPS-PR-SPPI module contained in RFC 3159 is an ASN.1 module which
imports ExtUTCTime in order to define SPPI - but COPS-PR-SPPI is
certainly not a MIB module written to conform to the SMIv2 language as
defined in RFC 2578. So I do not really see a problem here.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

References:
- Type definision issue in rfc2578
  - From: Wilson <Wilson@WSSPL.com>

Prev by Date: Type definision issue in rfc2578
Next by Date: RE: Type definision issue in rfc2578
Previous by thread: Type definision issue in rfc2578
Next by thread: Re: Type definision issue in rfc2578
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread