Hi, A few nits regrading MIB module checking... On 8/16/13 4:16 PM, "Sandy Ginoza" <sginoza@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >2) In the following, we suggest that "ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and >MIB-related details)" be updated to reflect "MIBs". Although MIB modules >are written using a subset of ASN.1, the RPC does not check all ASN.1, we >only check MIBs. This change will reflect what is done in practice. If >the intent is to actually require the RPC to check all ASN.1, please let >us know and we will discuss checking tools with the RSE and IAD. > >Current: > >1.3. Validation of formal languages > >The RPC should validate the syntax of sections of documents containing >formal languages. In particular ASN.1 (and particularly MIBs and >MIB-related details), YANG, ABNF, and XML should be verified using one or >more tools as approved by the RSE. > S/MIBs/MIB modules/ MIB Modules are written using version 2 of the SMI standard, a formal language which is an IETF-standardized "adapted subset" of ASN.1-1988. So MIB validation might be more accurately called SMI validation or SMIv2 validation (but SMIv3 could be done at some future date.) So s/ASN.1/SMI/ or s/ASN.1/SMIv2/ ASN.1 has moved on since the 1988 subset used for SMI. There are tools to validate against the more current ASN.1 standard. I'm not sure how much current ASN.1 is used in IETF documents, but if it is, then you might want to validate it. I think there is very little current ASN.1 usage in IETF documents. -- David Harrington Ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx +1-603-828-1401