Re: "Holes" in oid sequence.

>>> [email protected] 09/14/05 4:26 PM >>>
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:01:50 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 09:15 -0700, Tom Cumming wrote:
> DS> > Is it "legal" to define a MIB with holes in the oid numbering
> DS> 
> DS> Yes.
> DS> Relatively unusual, but perfectly legal.
> 
> Actually, I don't think that's right. per RFC 2578, Section 10.2:
> 
> Object Definitions
> 
>    An object definition may be revised in any of the following ways:
> 
> [...]
> 
> (7)  A conceptual row may be augmented by adding new columnar objects
at
>      the end of the row, and making the corresponding update to the
>      SEQUENCE definition.
> 
> This says you can't go back and fill holes. I'm not sure they they
considered
> leaving holes, so this was written with the assumption that there
wouldn't be
> any. At any rate, it appears to rule out new object in the middle
(though I
> can't think of a good reason why).

Unless you consider pre-made, undefined objects holes.  I 
would consider an object that has been defined as 
future expansion to not be a hole, but a pre-defined 
unallocated OBJECT-TYPE (or whatever).

Maybe you just need to account for it in the MIB, but not 
associate any specific value with it.  Maybe mark it as 
NOT-ACCESSIBLE or something until at which time you 
need to actually define it.

Paul



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. 
Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very
own Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[email protected]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users