RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now available

["Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@acm.org>]

I would second Bob's opinions on this issue (all those expressed so far
at least :-)).

I make particular objection to Andy's statement that these are
"practical guidelines on how to configure these programs to check a MIB
so it will meet IETF expectations". This is newspeak for "if you don't
buy or otherwise procure these products, you won't get your MIB past the
MIB quacks and/or IESG members". It also implies that the standard is
not sufficiently documented. I don't think IETF should be making such
implications (the latter, if true, needs fixing).

Andrew Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Bob Natale
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:54 AM
To: Mibs Mailing List
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now
available


At 2/25/2003:11:29 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:

Hi,

>At 05:12 PM 2/25/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>> >3.) The SMICng include file in Appendix C may need to be updated;
>>> >the editor is awaiting further input.
>>> 
>>> Why do we include any commercial products (as opposed
>>> to none or all)?
>>> 
>>Valid question. Maybe we should not.
>
>I think the current text in the draft is fine.
>  - It is in the appendix section 
>  - SMICng and smilint are both excellent tools for checking SMI
conformance
>  - SMICng and smilint are the most widely used tools for this purpose
>  - the draft is providing practical guidelines on how to configure
>    these programs to check a MIB so it will meet IETF expectations
>  - If some people think an important SMI validation tool has been
>    left out, I would rather see it added than the SMICng and smilint
>    sections removed

While I have already stated my case (that argues against
Andy's first sentence above), I do agree with the last
bullet in his list.

>Perhaps the draft should make it more clear that SMI conformance is 
>dictated by the standards documents, not any particular SMI conformance

>test tool.

That would be a very good idea.

Cheers,

BobN