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

Re: snmpconf comments should never include technical descriptions



At 11:45 AM 3/13/01 -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:22:04 -0500, Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com> said:
>
>Jon> One other item that should be added though is that there is value
>Jon> in the front matter of both standard and vendor specific MIB
>Jon> Modules that gives general contextual or technology grounding for
>Jon> the MIB Module. I do not think this violates your rules about
>Jon> putting things in the DESCRIPTION clause though.
>
>Grounding yes, description of usage no.
>
><theory>
>Actually, I think that publishing MIBs inside an ID or RFC solely
>designed to publish that MIB is a bad way to go, because people will
>want to write text in the rest of the document that should either go
>into description clauses or is a duplicate of the text in description
>clauses.
></theory>


One often has to to read the front matter in some RFCs to figure out
what compliance stmt to follow when implementing a MIB module. 

Here is some of the stuff one can typically see in the front matter.

1. What ifType to use (most all of the rfcs that will populate RFC 2863 ifTable)
2. Relation to other MIB modules, example Sec 3.3  of  rfc 2665 defines a
    REQUIRED relation to RFC 2668/MAU-MIB.


Regards,
Mike MacFaden
www.riverstonenet.com