From: "C. M. Heard" Subject: Conformance statements and IMPORT Date: 26 Jul 2001 08:37:46 +0200 Lines: 37 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To: snmpv3@lists.tislabs.com, mibs@ops.ietf.org X-Sender: heard@shell16.ba.best.com Greetings, In RFC 2580, it is stated that the objects specified in an OBJECT clauses of a MODULE-COMPLIANCE invocation or in a VARIATION clause of an AGENT-CAPABILITIES invocation do not need to be imported: 5.4.3. Mapping of the OBJECT clause [ ... ] By definition, each object specified in an OBJECT clause follows a MODULE clause which names the information module in which that object is defined. Therefore, the use of an IMPORTS statement, to specify from where such objects are imported, is redundant and is not required in an information module. 6.5.2. Mapping of the VARIATION clause [ ... ] By definition, each object specified in a VARIATION clause follows a SUPPORTS clause which names the information module in which that object is defined. Therefore, the use of an IMPORTS statement, to specify from where such objects are imported, is redundant and is not required in an information module. The same reasoning that applies to objects referenced by an OBJECT clause or a VARIATION clause also applies to notifications referenced by a VARIATION clause and to object groups and notification groups referenced by a MANDATORY-GROUPS clause, a GROUP clause, or a SUPPORTS clause. However, RFC 2580 does not explicitly say that notifications, object groups, and notification groups do not need to be imported in order to be used in these contexts. I would guess that this is an inadvertent omission. If so, it might be worth putting into a "technical corrigendum" document, if one is issued someday to update the SMIv2 documents. Regards, Mike