Re: Important question about draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt

[Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com>]

>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:11:11 -0700 (PDT), "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> said:

C> Presumably, the proposed text is intended to replace the third
C> paragraph of the DESCRIPTION clause of this TC.

(yes, although it was an "example".  I was hoping it would be used as
a template for the rest of the TCs being discussed too).

C> Observe that it is not permissible to specify something like this

C> SYNTAX  IpsecDoiSecProtocolId {
C> protoIsakmp(1),
C> protoIpsecAh(2),
C> protoIpsecEsp(3),
C> protoIpcomp(4),
C> protoIpsecCompanyProprietary(249)
C> }

C> in a VARIATION clause of an AGENT-CAPABILITIES statement.  That is
C> an illegal refinement, and at least some MIB compilers (SMICng is
C> one) will reject it.

Sad, unfortunately.  Ok, if that is illegal than it'll have to be
described in a DESCRIPTION clause, as you mentioned.  (there are many
types of agent exceptions/changes that can only be documented in the
description clause).  It's likely the need to document these
exceptions will be rare, fortunately.

C> My conclusion is still that use of enumerated INTEGER in a manner
C> that is inconsistent with the semantics defined in the SMIv2 RFCs
C> is something to be avoided.

We'll likely just have to disagree when this discussion is over, I'm
sure.  I do understand your point of view, of course and I think you
understand mine so we're probably out of things to say :-/

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Network Associates Laboratories