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

Hi -

> From: "Natale, Bob" <RNATALE@mitre.org>
> To: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> Cc: "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; <ops-dir@ietf.org>; "Rob Austein" <sra@hactrn.net>; <opsawg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG][OPS-DIR] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes -10.txtandRFC4560
>
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> I would just like to note that the portion of RFC 2578 that you omitted
> with "[...]" says this:
> 
> "Note that when symbols from 'enterprise-specific' information modules
> are referenced  (e.g., a descriptor), there is the possibility of
> collision."
> 
> Dan's text -- to which you were replying -- specifically referred to
> "TCs defined in standard space" and the uniqueness rule for rule for
> the TCs "defined in all 'standard' information modules". 
> 
> I read that as saying that there can be only one IETF standard TC for
> "InetAddress", or whatever, even though there could be any number of
> enterprise-specific TCs with that descriptor that might even refer to
> vastly different things.  So, there need be only one logical namespace
> for all IETF standard TCs (despite the fact that they might be defined
> in multiple physical modules.
...

That's an interesting reading, but I think it's clearly contradicted by the
fact that any IMPORTS statements referencing these descriptors must
use the actual module name of the module in which they were defined,
not some hypothetical IETF-SMI-namespace-module.

Randy

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg