RE: changes to ping MIB conformance material

> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:58:35PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>  
> > Merging in another implementation report on the DISMAN-PING-MIB
> > module has left me wondering whether it was a good idea to remove
> > the pingCompliance and pingGroup OBJECT-GROUP.  I find that I
> > have to go back to RFC 2925 to make sense of implementation reports,
> > and that when someone says they implement the pingGroup, that
> > has no meaning in terms of the current i-d.  This doesn't 
> seem right.
> 
> FWIW, smidiff flags the removal as serious errors:
> 
> DISMAN-PING-MIB:1118 [1] group `pingGroup' has been deleted
> DISMAN-PING-MIB:1163 [1] group `pingTimeStampGroup' has been deleted
> DISMAN-PING-MIB:1017 [1] compliance `pingCompliance' has been deleted
> 
> You can deprecate or obsolete things, but not remove things since other
> definitions might depend on things (e.g. agent capability statements).
> 

Exactly. When advancing from PS to DS (or recycling at PS), it is allowed
to "remove" things. But for our MIB modules, that "remove" should indeed
be translated into "deprecate" or "obsolete".

The old compliance statement(s) should also be deprecated/obsoleted and
new ones should be defined that no longer have the depreacted/obsoleted
groups present.

Bert
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
>