RFC Errata
RFC 4750, "OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base", December 2006
Source of RFC: ospf (rtg)See Also: RFC 4750 w/ inline errata
Errata ID: 3292
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Michael Kirkham
Date Reported: 2012-07-23
Verifier Name: Stewart Bryant
Date Verified: 2013-01-09
Section 5 says:
ospfTrapCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS obsolete DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement." MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { ospfTrapControlGroup } GROUP ospfTrapControlGroup DESCRIPTION "This group is optional but recommended for all OSPF systems." ::= { ospfTrapCompliances 1 }
It should say:
ospfTrapCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS obsolete DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement." MODULE -- this module GROUP ospfTrapControlGroup DESCRIPTION "This group is optional but recommended for all OSPF systems." ::= { ospfTrapCompliances 1 }
Notes:
ospfTrapControlGroup is listed both in the MANDATORY-GROUPS clause and in a GROUP clause. Per RFC 2580, Conformance Statements for SMIv2 (brackets added to indicate pertinent rule):
"5.4.2. Mapping of the GROUP clause
The GROUP clause, which need not be present, is repeatedly used to
name each object and notification group which is conditionally
mandatory for compliance to the MIB module. The GROUP clause can
also be used to name unconditionally optional groups. [A group named
in a GROUP clause must be absent from the correspondent MANDATORY-
GROUPS clause.]"
It is listed in both clauses in RFC 1850 as well (which RFC 4750 obsoletes). It is STATUS current in RFC 1850 and STATUS obsolete in 4750; however, obsolete or not, it is not legal according to SMI rules.