Subject: BITS: To IMPORT or not to IMPORT (fwd)

From: Gary Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:06:26 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Mickey,

John Flick raised a good question yesterday on the snmpv3 list,
regarding whether the BITS construct should be included in the
IMPORTS from SNMPv2-SMI.  A lively discussion followed, with no
clear consensus yet.  Various people seem to agree that the BITS
consruct is ambiguously defined, but more seem to believe that in
spite of its ambiguity, it should NOT be included in the IMPORTS.
This, for example, is what was done in the MIBs in RFC 2006, 2021,
2238, and 2287, and also in the ACCOUNTING-CONTROL-MIB in the
<draft-ietf-atommib-acct-04.txt> document from November 1996
(which for all I know has expired).

I mention this because <draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-12.txt> DOES have
BITS included in the IMPORTS list.  It probably should be removed,
for consistency, although the debate will probably continue, and
you may want to wait until the dust settles....

Regards,
Gary

 ______
| ///  |       TM   Gary Hanson                [email-masked]
|   ADC|Kentrox     14375 NW Science Park Dr.  503-641-3321 (FAX)
|______|            Portland, Oregon  97229    800-733-5511 x6333

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 15:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Flick <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: BITS: To IMPORT or not to IMPORT

Must/Should the BITS pseudotype be included in the IMPORTS from
SNMPv2-SMI if it is used in a MIB module?

smicng complains if it is not imported.  mosy complains if it is
imported.  OpenView doesn't seem to care one way or the other.  Which
is correct?

John