> There is a mfd implementation of inetNetToMediaTable in CVS.... > Unfortunately, in the latest draft, they > renamed the table to ipNetToPhysicalTable. > They didn't change objects; just the table name.
Hmmm.... That's one of the problems in implementing from an I-Draft, I suppose. > The question is: should I nuke the code in CVS and re-add with the new name > (and hope it doesn't change again), or just update the OID and live with the > name inconsistency? Has the numeric OID actually changed? Or do you just mean the internal variable names? My gut reaction is to wait - stick with what you've got at the moment (and probably don't even bother changing internal names). It's probably worth putting a comment in to say that things have changed, but nothing more. When this finally appears as an RFC, then *that's* the time to rename the implementation files, etc. Once it's got that far, it's unlikely to change again. I haven't looked at your code yet, but I presume you're also implementing the ipNetToMediaTable (based on the same data) as well? What about the atTable? Will the ipNetToPhysicalTable be included by default, or an optional module (to be configured in explicitly) ? Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
