[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Naming Conventions for Descriptors (was: comments/review <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt>)
- To: "C. M. Heard" <email@example.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Naming Conventions for Descriptors (was: comments/review <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt>)
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:47:32 +0100
Sounds good to me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: vrijdag 7 februari 2003 21:33
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Naming Conventions for Descriptors (was: comments/review
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > I have one more concern. It is something I run into
> > very often when reviewing MIB modules. And that is
> > Naming Conventions for descriptors.
> [ lots of good details snipped ]
> > I think I would like it to also be one of the checkpoints in
> > appendix A.
> > Do people find this to much of another CLR ??
> Bert, I like this idea. Organizationally, I would suggest
> that it belongs somewhere at the end of 4.6 (it would be
> 4.6.6 if we don't do any section renumbering). And if you
> want it mentioned in the checklist in Appendix A it seems
> like item 10 is the place to mention it.
> Any other opinions?