RE: changes to ping MIB conformance material

--On 06.10.2004 12:56 h +0200 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

>> 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.

OK, I will insert the old groups and the compliance statements for all
three MIB modules.

As their new status I prefer "deprecated".  Any objections?

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email protected]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de


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