You asked is there any RFC that requires multiple MIB implementations,
including all options? Below is the relevant section of RFC 2438, BCP
27, Advancement of MIB Specifications (October 1998). The requirement
is completely unambiguous, and there isn't ANY 'grandfather clause'.
Also RFC 2360, BCP 22, Guide for Internet Standards Writers (June 1998)
and RFC 2434, BCP 26, Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section in RFCs (October 1998).
The IESG just made the SNMP working group themselves post an interop
report just to advance the level of SMIv2 (as specified in the RFC 190x
series). Good luck getting a waiver...
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Working Group M. O'Dell
Request for Comments: 2438 UUNET Technologies
BCP: 27 H. Alvestrand
Category: Best Current Practice Maxware
B. Wijnen
IBM T. J. Watson Research
S. Bradner
Harvard University
October 1998
Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards Track
<...>
5. Discussion and Recommended Process
>> In order to meet their obligations under the IETF Standards Process,
>> the Operations and Management Area Directors and the IESG must be
>> convinced that each MIB specification advanced to Draft Standard or
>> Internet Standard status is clearly written, that there are the
>> required multiple interoperable implementations, and that all options
>> have been implemented. There are multiple ways to achieve this goal.
Appendix A lists some testing approaches that could be used when
attempting to document multiple implementations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------