Robin> P.S. I don't know whether INDEX { INTEGER } is valid usage of
Robin> the ASN.1 rules which apply to SNMP (v1 or v2), so I cannot
Robin> say whether or not this is a bug in scotty or the Shiva MIB.
The ASN.1 definition in RFC 1902 section 2 is not very clear, but the
text in RFC 1902 section 7.7 says:
The instance identification information in an INDEX clause must
specify object(s) such that value(s) of those object(s) will
unambiguously distinguish a conceptual row.
This quite clearly says that the INDEX clause specifies objects and
not types. So I conclude that the Shiva MIB is broken (and the SNMP
SMI in general because it is so fuzzy and difficult to understand).
Juergen
-- Juergen Schoenwaelder schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Bueltenweg 74/75, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany. (Tel. +49 531 / 391-3283)-- !! This message is brought to you via the `tkined & scotty' mailing list. !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or !! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <tkined-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>. !! See http://wwwsnmp.cs.utwente.nl/~schoenw/scotty/ for more information.