Re: [mpls] Help with Erratum on RFC 3815

["Joan Cucchiara" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

This issue was addressed by another MIB Dr. about the time
the Errata was filed on the mpls list.  To quote the response:

"While this may be a poor practice, I don't think it actually
violates RFC 2578.  As far as I can see, the only thing it actually
says is this:

7.10.  Mapping of the OBJECT-TYPE value
...
(2)  If the object corresponds to a conceptual row, then at least one
     assignment, one for each column in the conceptual row, is present
     beneath that object.  The administratively assigned name for each
     column is derived by appending a unique, positive sub-identifier to
     the administratively assigned name for the conceptual row.

which does not put any ordering constraints on the sub-identifiers.

Unless there is something that I have missed, it seems to me that
this is not actually an erratum.

Mike Heard"

I agree with Mike that this is not technically a mistake, so no fix is 
required.

What happens to this errata now?

Thanks,
   -Joan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Joan Cucchiara" <[e-mail]>; "Hans Sjöstrand" 
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 10:15 AM
Subject: Help with Erratum on RFC 3815


> Hi,
>
> Erratum 227 at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=227 points 
> out a real issue.
>
> But I am not sure if it needs to be fixed or whether a resolution 
> introduces a backwards compatibility issue.
>
> Does it matter that the order of objects in the SEQUENCE do not match the 
> order of the OIDs? Is there a need to reorder anything:
> - the objects in the SEQUENCE
> - the OIDs assigned.
>
> I suspect that, although the current state of the module is "unusual", no 
> fix is actually required.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts.
>
> Adrian