RE: Type definision issue in rfc2578
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Thu, 16 May 2002 16:45:20 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <A451D5E6F15FD211BABC0008C7FAD7BC0DECA4B7@nl0006exch003u.nl.lucent.com> |
I think: SPPI (RFC3159) is NOT defining a MIB or a PIB but instead defining a "new language" or an "update to the SMI language". So that is a quite different thing than defining another MIB or PIB Module. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 11:47 AM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: Type definision issue in rfc2578 > > > [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, > it is easy to > miss and therefore delete mis-posts. so fix subscription > addresses! ] > > Hi, Can someone help in the following issue.. > > I have some doubt in the types defined in the RFC2578, and > its usage in > RFC3159. > > In RFC2578 the type defintion for ExtUTCTime is said not to > be imported by > any MIB definition, > but the RFC3159 is using the MIB definition convention to > define the frame > work for PIB defintions, and it is importing the ExtUTCTime, > as per the > RFC2578 which not to be allowed. > > > > >