On 16/04/07, srikrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I happen to see the RFC1212 and in the INDEX class, it is defined that > there are possibility of having the INDEX less tables ( 4.1.6 - Mapping > of the INDEX clause ). Then it is treated as non-columnar objects, and > the instances of the object are identified by appending a sub-identifier > of zero to the name of the object .
As Subra has said, this is referring to Scalar objects. It's implied that tables should have either an INDEX clause, or an equivalent textual description of how the table should be indexed. Note that RFC 1212 defines SMIv1, which was replaced by SMIv2 some eight years ago or more. This is defined in RFC 2578, and explicitly states: 7.7. Mapping of the INDEX clause The INDEX clause, which must be present if that object corresponds to a conceptual row....., and must be absent otherwise, So this explicitly rules out the possibility of index-less tables. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [email protected] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
