Re: [mpls] Help with Erratum on RFC 3815

	Yes, Joan is correct (and Mike); no error here. It is just perhaps aesthetically not pretty.  We in fact discussed this with Bert when we were wrapping up the original "MPLS pack" of MIBs (3811, 12, 13, 14, and 15) and it was agreed to just leave things alone.

	--Tom


> 
> 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" <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
> To: <mpls@ietf.org>
> Cc: "Joan Cucchiara" <jcucchiara@mindspring.com>; "Hans Sjöstrand" <hans@ipunplugged.com>; <james_luciani@mindspring.com>; <mibs@ops.ietf.org>
> 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 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>