Re: RE: Compilation compatibiltiy withdraft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05

Hi -

> From: "Edward Beili" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Cc: "C. M. Heard" <[email protected]>; "IETF Hub MIB Working Group" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:08 AM
> Subject: [Hubmib] RE: Compilation compatibiltiy withdraft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05
>

> Clay,
> From the RFC 4181 perspective this change is allowed and was approved by the working group.
> I would invite other people on this list to provide their views on that matter.

Except for the "typo" loophole, RFC 4181 doesn't seem terribly supportive:

|   - Bullet (1) allows the labels of named numbers and named bits in
|     SYNTAX clauses of type enumerated INTEGER or BITS to be changed.
|     This can break compilation compatibility, since those labels may be
|     used by DEFVAL clauses in modules that import the definitions of
|     the affected objects.  Therefore, labels of named numbers and named
|     bits MUST NOT be changed when revising IETF MIB modules (except to
|     correct typographical errors), and they SHOULD NOT be changed when
|     revising enterprise MIB modules.

> My (supporting) opinion is stated in the email exchange below.
 
A side-effect of using a common TC can be to fix a "typo"?...  I guess it depends
on how good one's imagination is.  Without descending into CLR-dom, I think
what's most important here is to consider whether there are any references
*anywhere* to the "mis-spelled" labels.  If there are, then that supports the
perspective that the change should not be made.  If there aren't, then the
change is OK even though technically forbidden, in my opinion.

Randy