This specific question came up very pointedly when the HRMIB groups
were suggested for inclusion by reference. Hopefully Steve Waldbusser
will substantiate my recollection that the reference was considered as
being to a group definition in a different MIB, and was at the group
level, not the MIB level. This was perhaps akin to using textual
conventions defined in some other MIB. Therefore, requirements of the
MIB from which the group was copped are not inherently transferred.
With this interpretation, such inclusion is as part of the printer MIB
and does not constitute compliant implementation of the HR MIB.
Whether a manufacturer wants to implement the HR MIB and what
constitutes compliant implementation of the HR MIB seems a completely
different question and has no bearing on compliant implementation of
the Printer MIB.
HRL - I agree with both of Bill's notes on this topic. I included
HRL - hrSystem Group in my note about hrMIB because of the information
HRL - we had been reviewing from the bakeoff where several vendors DID
HRL - include it.
HRL - One thing that always struck me as curious... why we called out
HRL - in a similar fashion, only certain groups of MIB-II, when, for
HRL - the most part, any network entity does all of MIB-II. That one
HRL - threw me (since I hadn't messed with SNMP until RFC1759).
HRL - I think it's misleading.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems.