Pamela Heckmann writes:
Pamela> Here is the object information. It is included in the Pamela> fooTest.mib I sent out yesterday.
myObjectID OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "An object." DEFVAL { { 5 4 3 2 1 } } ::= { fooTest 14 }
Now I see what you mean. RFC 2578 says in section 7.9:
The value of the DEFVAL clause must, of course, correspond to the SYNTAX clause for the object. If the value is an OBJECT IDENTIFIER, then it must be expressed as a single ASN.1 identifier, and not as a collection of sub-identifiers.
In other words, the correct fix would be to reject the DEFVAL clause altogether and to require that the authors defines an OID value
foo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 5 4 3 2 1 }
and later uses:
DEFVAL { foo }
Note also that the foo definition is illegal since the first sub-identifier must be 0, 1 or 2 (according to some arcane ASN.1 rules).
Frank, since you are more familiar with the grammar, can you take the token to remove the code that parses nice but illegal OID values in DEFVALs?
/js