Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [OPSAWG] [OPS-DIR] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes -10.txtandRFC4560

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 02:29:18PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> Randy,
> 
> Can you explain what other reading can be given from the following
> phrase in section 3 of RFC 2579? 
> 
> 'Further, all names used for the textual conventions
>    defined in all "standard" information modules shall be unique.'
> 
> IMO the fact that IMPORTS statements referencing these descriptors must
> use the actual module name does not contradict in any way the
> requirement for uniqueness of TC descriptor names in SMIv2, but rather
> is just a linkage necessity derived from the fact that there is no
> single module that includes all standard TCs. 

I believe the sentence in question is a policy rule and has no sound
technical basis. If the rule does have a technical basis, then the
SMIv2 has (i) a technical defect since TC name collisions can happen
in non-"standard" modules and (ii) there is no mechanism in place to
actually guarantee unique TC names in all "standard" information
modules. (And I am not asking the question what "standard" in quotes
means. ;-)

In the future and the concrete case of YANG, we should try hard to
properly separate policy from mechanisms.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors