Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Fwd: Re: [Errata Verified] RFC7630 (4509)

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:29 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

If the object identifier by which something is registered changes,
isn't it really a new thing, since the OID is its only truly 
guaranteed-to-be-unique identification?

It seems to me that this regrettable case has the net effect of
creating a *new* MIB module which functionally replaces the botched
one.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Oct 21, 2015 2:22 AM
>To: Johannes Merkle <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Fwd: Re: [Errata Verified] RFC7630 (4509)
>
>On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:26:33AM +0200, Johannes Merkle wrote:
>> ah, thanks for pointing that out.
>> 
>> But what is your advice w.r.t the revision? Is it a new revision of the MIB?
>>
>
>I think this is a new revision since the initial version was
>'published'.
>
>/js
>
>-- 
>Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 23:51:58 +0200

Well yes, but in SMIv2 land (diregarding that ASN.1 also provides
other mechanisms), we import by name not by OID and the module name
remains the same...

/js