[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: clarify that MIB review requirements are targeted at standards-track documents but are useful for other documents
- To: "C. M. Heard" <email@example.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: clarify that MIB review requirements are targeted at standards-track documents but are useful for other documents
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:36:50 +0100
Works for me (wfm)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 11 februari 2003 22:32
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: clarify that MIB review requirements are targeted at
> standards-track documents but are useful for other documents
> [ note expansion of subject line :) ]
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > I do get the point (I think). At the other hand, I do
> > want this doc to be considered seriously by other people
> > doing MIB work and when we get to review such other MIB
> > work, I think we'd still try to take these guidelines
> > (as you also say below). Can we add maybe something to the
> > abstract aka:
> > Although some rules/guidelines may not be applicable to
> > non-standards track or non-IETF MIB documents, a MIB
> > review will still be done with most of these rules/guidelines
> > as the starting point.
> I'm not terribly keen on that change as written because (a) it
> makes the abstract rather long and (b) because the document
> should not make assertions like "will be used" in places where
> its use is discretionary.
> So, how about this instead:
> This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of IETF
> standards-track specifications containing MIB modules. Applicable
> portions may used as a basis for reviews of other MIB documents.
> 1. Introduction
> Some time ago the IESG instituted a policy of requiring OPS area
> review of all IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB
> modules. These reviews were established to ensure that such
> specifications follow established IETF documentation practices and
> that the MIB modules they contain meet certain generally accepted
> standards of quality, including (but not limited to)
> compliance with
> all syntactic and semantic requirements of SMIv2 (STD 58) [RFC2578]
> [RFC2579] [RFC2580] that are applicable to "standard" MIB modules.
> The purpose of this memo is to document the guidelines that are
> followed in such reviews.
> [ leave 2nd paragraph as is ]
> Although some of the guidelines in this memo are not applicable to
> non-standards track or non-IETF MIB documents, authors and
> of those documents should consider using the ones that do apply.
> I'm sure this could be improved, and suggestions for doing so
> are solicited.